April 19, 2012

When Nancy Pelosi Speaks…

Something idiotic is bound to come out of her cosmetically stretched and plumped pie hole.

Case in point:  “Amend the First Amendment”:

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.

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

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

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 roll 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 roll 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.

— Or, in other words, everyone who wants a say in the political process will have to disclose who they are so that the political class knows who to target for intimidation, either by attacking them as private citizens (eg., the Koch brothers), by way of the IRS (eg., TEA Party groups), or with “boycotts” and shakedowns of the kinds perfected by Jesse Jackson and other race hustlers.  Exempt as “predators” and guiltless in the oozing of slime?  Unions, NGOs, and other Democrat donors, if I had to guess.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said 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.”

Progressives love the Court — and consider its rulings sacrosanct — unless the Court rules against them.  At which point, Court rulings are illegitimate affronts to the “democracy” our “Founders” are supposed to have championed.

I look forward to this effort.  Because I suspect plenty of anti-abortion groups will be watching closely this (politicized) effort to take on SCOTUS with an eye toward how they’ll likely proceed going forward.

Not to mention, I can see a GOP Congress, along with a coalition of GOP governors, moving to amend the Constitution to narrow the scope of the Commerce Clause — and in so doing, to reverse the leftist slant of government managed by the progressives in one glorious 3/4 vote of the put-upon states.

Eureka!

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 5:45pm
24 comments | Trackback

Comments (24)

  1. I’m at the place where I want to bury the hatchet with Nancy Pelosi. I leave it to others to think where.

  2. When Nancy Pelosi speaks, brain cells die by the billion.

    WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF YHE BRAIN CELLS!!??

  3. Typo editing fails in Firefox Beta for Android.

  4. we’re losing let’s change the rule book

  5. “Roll of money”? Ok, Nancy. Do you mean “role of money” or “roll of money”, as in he was carrying quite a roll of money.

    Does anyone proof these articles anymore?

  6. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy.

    no they didn’t you clueless plutocrat.

  7. Breaking on the wheel is too good for her.

    I say we botox her jaw shut.

  8. Y’know, amending the amendment wouldn’t even accomplish what the Democrats want. All a corporation has to do is publish an in-house newsletter, and they’re protected.

    Or maybe the MSM really is that lame and busted.

  9. Our founders had an idea. It was called democracy.

    That should be grounds for immediate recall.

    Just because San Fransisco is full of drooling simpletons… I mean ther should be limits on how much the rest of us have to endure.

  10. “reducing the roll [sic] of money in campaigns”

    Easy, peasy. Cut the Federal budget by half and the regulatory agencies by 90%. I guarantee the role of money in campaigns will lessen considerably. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and it will fall even more.

  11. It really isn’t unfair at all to bring Obama’s canine consumption to public attention. The president isn’t really one of us. He’s a dog-eater. He tells the story in his memoir to emphasize that viscerally, Obama identifies with the Third World of his upbringing more than with the America of his adulthood. It is our great misfortune to have a president who dislikes our country at this juncture in our history.

    link

  12. Pingback: Nancy Pelosi Stuck On Stupid - The POH Diaries

  13. Strange. Isn’t this the same woman who said that the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo was almost the equivalent of the word of God? http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/103935/pelosi/ramesh-ponnuru

  14. The pampered bint wants to fuck with the First Amendment.

    I cannot say what she deserves as punishment, in public, on the intertubes. But think of Hellraiser and you’re getting warm.

    In wiser times there would be a pillory and bilboes awaiting her.

  15. Seems to me the appropriate response to Nan is…

    “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

  16. She is a profoundly stupid person, and she proves it often.

  17. I never thought I would say it, but at least with a Constitutional Amendment Nancy is going at it in a way that is Constitutional. Wrongheaded, sure, but within the framework provided.

    I would like to limit the speech of sitting members of Congress by equipping them all with butt plugs so they won’t keep talking out of their ass.

  18. I never thought I would say it, but at least with a Constitutional Amendment Nancy is going at it in a way that is Constitutional. Wrongheaded, sure, but within the framework provided.

    I absolutely agree. I’m just stunned that she’d do this without thinking it opens up all sort of carefully closed Pandora’s boxes so crucial to leftist incrementalism.

    Imagine using Constitutional amendments, supported by the people (and forcing elected officials to go against the will of the electorate), that would re-establish the importance of the 9th and 10th amendments and in one fell swoop put the federal government back permanently in its place?

    I love the idea. I say bring it on and let’s get this corrective going. I’m just hoping the move by the Democrats precipitates a deluge of discussion.

  19. I disagree with Nancy amendment wholeheartedly, but I think it’s the first time she has ever advocated dealing with something in an actual Constitutional manner.

    I bet she thinks she is being clever, trying to shortstop conservative criticism. But her amendment won’t fly, for reasons you state, Jeff. That and when all is said and done, the amendment will be accurately portrayed as an attack on the first amendment.

    I can’t wait for the ACLUs reaction. That could implode that group even farther, should they choose to support it.

  20. Pingback: Friday Linkage: 4-20-2012 | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

  21. Okay, let Nancy proceed with a constitutional amendment. All well, good, and proper.
    Then proceed to slap the hell out of it, constitutionally.
    They can think of it as a “teachable moment”.

  22. But think of Hellraiser and you’re getting warm.

    “Christ wept.”

  23. Pingback: Free Speech - unless we don't agree with you ...

  24. Pingback: Feel the Tolerance « The Cranky Conservative

Leave a Reply