More Liberal attacks on the First Amendment

Good day all. As I wrote last week, Comrade Senator Charles “Upchuck” Schumer is vowing to rewrite the First Amendment. The Progressive Liberal Fascist Democrats even went so far as to hold hearings and trotted out retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens ((John Paul Stevens)) to say the time has come to pretty much do away with Freedom of Speech, (And religion) for Americans.

Stevens is a noted Statists, ((Statism)) as are all members of the PLFD as well as the Establishment RINO wing of the Republican Party. We have also seen many attempts by the various bureaucracies to impose controls on individuals and groups, starting with the now defunct Fairness Doctrine ((The Fairness Doctrine)) and most recently, the Bureau of Land Managements attempt to create a “Free Speech Zone” for people protesting their treatment of the Bundy family in Nevada.

New we have the Federal Elections Commission saying they intend to regulate the media. Here are the details from Fox News:

The chairman of the Federal Election Commission warned Wednesday that officials at the agency want to start regulating the media, despite a longstanding congressional ban on doing so.

“The impulse to regulate the media within the FEC is alive and well,” Chairman Lee E. Goodman told FoxNews.com in an interview.

We have seen how the various bureaucracies have started to ignore both the will of congress and the laws of late. They know they won’t be punished in any way by the PLFD’s or the RINO’s. So what does Mr. Goodman see that could be an issue?

Goodman pointed to several recent decisions and developments that stoke concerns about the commission — which is supposed to regulate money in federal elections — sticking its nose in the affairs of the press. Foremost is a case that was considered in 2013 involving Boston TV station WCVB. The station had invited a Democratic and Republican congressional candidate for a debate-style program during the election a year earlier, but another third-party candidate complained he was illegally excluded. The FEC looked at the case, because of allegations the treatment of the other candidates was tantamount to a contribution. Ultimately, the FEC dismissed the complaint.

But Goodman voiced concern that it was seriously considered at all, saying the commission was in the position of trying to “second guess the editorial decisions” of the network.

The consideration, he said, “clearly indicates that there are people in the FEC who believe we have the power to regulate the media.

I’m going to hazard a guess that the people who want to censor political speech also voted for Obama.

Goodman also pointed to recent cases where the FEC was deadlocked, 3-3, on cases he argues should have been unanimously struck down. This includes a 2010 complaint about “The Sean Hannity Show” over an endorsement that went out on the radio show’s distribution list.

I did a search on the FEC and found that 4 current members out of 6 were appointed by GW Bush. It’s rather surprising that one of them supports government censorship, however I suspect he was looking at going after organizations like the New York Times. It doesn’t matter, he or she was dead wrong.

Goodman, a Republican, has raised concerns that the FEC could try to specifically regulate conservative media, by chipping away at a media exemption in FEC rules. But he told FoxNews.com he supports a “broad and absolute media exemption for all press,” no matter their political leanings.

he fact that the commission is deliberating on these media cases, he argues, raises the concern that the commission is just one appointment away from eroding that exemption. This, he said, should not be subject to the “idiosyncratic judgment of individual commissioners.”

The fact that the FEC is even considering censoring political speech is all I need to know. This agency needs to be abolished. In point of fact, it shouldn’t exist anyway. It came into being right after the Watergate scandal.

Goodman is just the latest federal government official to speak out on the potential for a new wave of government regulation of the press. Goodman wrote about his concerns in detail in a Wall Street Journal column on Feb. 4, warning that the WCVB case means every TV newsroom “must look over its shoulder” when inviting candidates for a joint appearance.

This ties in with an attempt by the FCC ((Federal Communications Commission)) to “Survey” news rooms on how they choose which stories to cover. Most of these calls for censoring and controlling the right of free speech is coming from the political left, people such as Upchuck Schumer and John Paul Stevens.

Further, comments from retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens – in which he suggested the Constitution be amended to allow for “reasonable limits” on money to campaigns under the First Amendment — raised additional red flags.

As I’ve, and others, have noted in the past, the Progressives despise the constitution and have worked for over a century to destroy it. This is just the latest attempt by the Liberal Fascists to destroy the rights of all Americans. Needless to say, not all of the members of the FEC see any sort of a problem with what they are doing.

In response to his Feb. 4 column, Vice Chair Ann Ravel and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said Goodman drew some “mystifying inferences” from the Boston case. They said in a response published in the Journal that the dismissal “hardly would seem to provide fodder for hyperbolic claims of ‘aggressive FEC regulation’ or threats of censoring Sunday morning talk shows.”

“These charges ignore a lengthy FEC history of Democratic commissioners voting to enforce the federal campaign laws against Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and progressives, up to and including recent presidents of the U.S. of both parties,” they wrote.

You will excuse me if I shout out, at the top of my lungs, “BOVINE DROPPINGS!!!!” What I am seeing here is those who believe in the supremacy of the government ignoring the facts. Over the last 5 years, we have seen blatant assaults on conservative groups by the IRS, the FEC and the PLFD’s in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Their goal is to end freedom in American and institute a single party socialist state. I can’t recall the last time we saw such an attack on the rights of the American People.

Actually I can. Prior to the arrival of the Obama Regime, we saw this happen under that noted protector of the constitution, Woodrow Wilson, ((Woodrow Wilson’s Constitution)) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt ((FDR a Champion of Violating the Constitution)). You could add George Walker Bush to the list, but not for locking up Prisoners of War at Guantanamo Bay. That is perfectly legitimate. No, he can be hammered for things like the Patriot Act and a number of other things he did that took rights away from Americans.

The FEC has a long history of trying to suppress political speech. Going back to 2005 we see them denying that they intend to do this. According to the Heritage Foundation:

The FEC “does not tell private citizens what they can or cannot say on the Internet or elsewhere,” Weintraub added. During the same March 24 hearing, Weintraub’s fellow Democrat on the panel, Danny McDonald, mocked as “much ado about nothing” claims by Internet critics that the FEC was considering regulating political speech on the Internet.

Nothing? In fact, several weeks before the hearing, General Counsel Lawrence Norton told all six FEC commissioners that the panel must police political speech on the Internet with the same strict campaign finance regulations that silence critics on broadcast media two months before a congressional election. This became public when RedState.org blogger Mike Krempasky published a leaked copy of Norton’s March 10 draft of a proposed rule that would have effectively imposed on the Internet the same restrictive regulations that, among other things, ban broadcast TV spots that mention federal candidates by name.

Now this was 9 years ago, but as current events have shown, they continue to revisit the idea that they can and should censor what people say. If Weintraub really meant what she said, she would be shutting this down as fast as the current FEC chairman is trying to do. But of course, Ellen Weintraub ((Ellen L. Weintraub)) is a paid up member in good standing of the PLFD’s.

The Federal Elections Committee, in my mind, is unconstitutional. Now I have no doubt some pointy headed lawyer types will say I’m wrong. Fine. Show me in the constitution where it says the Federal Government can regulate political speech. I’ll wait. Couldn’t find anything could you? Oh I’m sure you will throw all these precedents at me, but those really are meaningless. There is only one precedent the courts should follow, and that is the actual written text of the Constitution of the United States as amended. Here, allow me to refresh your memory. The text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads in full:

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.

Simple to understand isn’t it? But then I didn’t go to law school and study Constitutional law. I just read the original document and the Federalist papers. Perhaps law schools should go back to teaching that instead of Constitutional Law and precedents. Then we might start seeing lawyers and judges actually remembering what they are supposed to be doing. Upholding the rights of the people and NOT the government.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...