Whittling away the rights of the people

Whittling away the rights of the people

Low-hanging fruit

Author
By Sarge

One of the major things fell into my hand lately (in the sense of debatable low-hanging fruit) was Chuck “The Schmuck” Schumer believing he’s intelligent enough to slaughter the Constitution by modifying it and gutting the First Amendment. This is because he finds free speech to be untenable and as such must be curbed lest he be restricted from destroying what this country stands for. Freedom of speech (in the sense of campaign finance) exposes his efforts to turn this nation into a poorly defined but fully operative replication of a totalitarian state. But he’s specifically worried because his liberal, millionaire (billionaire?) contributors are being matched by conservative billionaires.



James Madison was a little guy. But, at no more than 5 feet-six inches he and his words have shown he towers above the present crew of intellect challenged numb-nuts controlling America. It was Madison’s thoughts empowered the First Amendment as it stands.

With Schumer’s rhetoric such as: “the Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the age of robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections” he’s managed to inflate the balloon with the noxious gas he passes on a regular basis. This is no more than the Alinskyist bombast Schumer’s known for. He wants Congress to legislate and amend the Constitution so as to “once and for all allow Congress to make laws to regulate our system, without the risk of them being eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court”.



So, Chuckles, there’s not too much room for you to walk this statement back. You’re saying the system is yours. It’s not America’s. It belongs to those like yourself: self-important, self-centered, overly impressed with your belief only you and your Congressional and Senatorial cronies self-assured of your elitist and socially superior position are capable of knowing what’s best for America. You and Mark Udall (D-NM) feel you need to regulate campaign finances. I find that to be acceptable. We need to be assured foreign potentates don’t continue to bribe people such as you to influence our policies foreign or domestic. But I want to read how you’ll assure regulation is enforced so Democrats can have “freedom of speech” enough to gather grants and awards from liberal millionaires and billionaires while restricting the fund raising of conservative groups and parties to do the same. Will you rely on slime like Lois Lerner and her IRS ilk to threaten, audit and abuse conservatives while looking the other way from liberals?

This amendment would be philosophically structured to assure “nothing should be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” That’s rich in its way. To place NO encumbrances on a free press today doesn’t prevent an encroachment in the future nor does it rein in the liberal press so dominant in the market today. Why would anybody want to restrain an entity presently a slavish minion of the group seeking to maintain that dominance of thought direction? It’s a short walk from restricting the people’s right by Constitutional Amendment of this sort and taking the next step to grind the weak and the poor under the heel of those believing they’re plutocratic or the possessors of the god given right to rule.

How much money I choose to contribute to any charity or political cause is a statement in fact. It is my statement and action to place my resources where I see them to be best used to reflect my ideas, ideals and ideology. To refuse me or anybody (individual or corporate) the right to make my statement at the top of my lungs and with all of the vehemence I choose to display is an abridgement of my First Amendment right. I will take up arms to defend that right.

Schumer and Udall say they want to curb the “conservative Supreme Court” from “eviscerating” legislation brought from the congress. It’s a shame these two hyper-educated yet incredibly stupid men don’t understand the Supreme Court was designed to “eviscerate” stupid legislation when it was found to be contrary to the good of the nation (not just the elite Congress and Senate). It was designed to counterbalance the actions of men and women creating laws found to be UN-CONSTITUTIONAL and thus UNACCEPTABLE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLES of freedom and fair-play for all.

Be careful, Chuckles. When you whittle at the rights of the people, you may get an invitation to coffee and cake sliced by a Guillotine. Ask Robespierre.