This is regrettable, but to be expected.
A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.
“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.
He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.
In a video obtained by the website, Johnson asserts that “corporations control … patterns of thinking.”
“They control the media. They control the messages that you get,” he added. “And these folks … are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening.”
We are “privatizing everything” – that’s statolatrist code for “the government owns everything and we just give you what we want you to have”.
What is so damned hard to understand about this:
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.
F*cking communist statolatrist liberal asshats. These fools and charlatans have no idea what liberty and freedom mean. They are just petty little dictator wanna-be morons.
Secession here we come.
The Rio Norte Line 
STOP THAT SECESSION TALK!
Don’t you know that is not “conservative?”
Then I’m not one. I just sent in my paperwork to change my registration to “independent”.
Uh-oh. You can expect a “conservative/libertarian” to be along shortly to put you back in line. Don’t you know that you are now an asshat for working against the conservative/libertarian movement? (if you’re not with them, you’re against the — or so it would appear) 😉
I became a “Thomas Jeffersonian” during law school about 20 years ago.
I thought I was all alone until recently.
“we” ARE NOT conservatives or right wing anything.
STOP using the Marxists’ language.
If anyone does attempt to secede, the Marxists are going to violently and swiftly ATTEMPT to crush the movement.
So if you wanna live, forget it.
All we have to do is SURVIVE. This Marxist utopia is going to implode all by itself, without any help from us. When it does, we merely stand up from the ashes and give birth once again to Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, et al., dreams and vision.
Texas,
I agree. It only took Russia about 75 years to collapse after the Communists had full control over it (and with Reagan’s help to push them), so just hang in there. At the rate we’re going, the Marxists should have full control over the U.S. by 2016. Then we only have to wait for 2096 and we’re home free — just like Russia is today.
of course, we’ll need a new America to rise up somewhere in the world to push our Communist government over the edge, but I’m sure the Chinese will fill that role for us by then. I mean, you can see how influential Moses and Locke are in China today, so surely they’re just days away from a Jeffersonian revolt.
Yep, Texas has it all figured out for us. Just hang in there, our grand children will be OK.
The RATE of DECAY is an exponentially increasing rate.
In the last 4 years, MORE than 75 people went on food stamps for every person that obtained a job . . .
with the taxes and regulations, multiply the 75 by X raised to an exponential number . . . The GREAT DEPRESSION will be remembered as a blip on the radar screen when more than half the “employables” are on foodstamps, welfare, medicaid, etc.
When the IMAGINARY dollars on their EBT cards can’t feed the person holding the card, what is gonna happen? You and I have studied history.
The supporters of THIEVERY in this nation will descend into CHAOS so quickly, Katrina will be considered a “dress rehearsal”.
No one ever dreamed 86 or 100 TRILLION dollars in debt. Can the WORLD even pay that? No.
TRUST is truly lost by those who create wealth. I know wealthy, and those who can, who are already going back to their “home countries” where things were bad, but now are better than America.
Other governments no longer trust America now. When the dollar is WORTHLESS, even welfare drug addicts will realize they have been lied to by their leaders.
America isn’t Russia. Russia’s people were already a “peasant” or “slave” mindset with WWI decimating the rest of the noble individuals. Centuries of pogroms, “individuals” being murdered by the CZARS, or fleeing westward to a life with a FUTURE.
America ain’t CHINA with 1.2 or 1.3 billion people who have been “slaves” for centuries and are patient and fearful.
I don’t think the current Government can MURDER, or “imprison and re-educate” all the TEA PARTY members in America. I’m guessing that’s 30 % of the population. Bill Ayers and his Marxists figured they would only need to handle 20-25 million people, not 80-100 million people.
Nazi Germany only lasted, what, 12 years? 1933-45? Nazi Germany was able to mobilize EVERYONE who was not murdered or put in a concentration camp, and they “ONLY” burned 12 million people.
Sorry, the FSA ain’t gonna work, less than half of them are capable of working or producing anything.
Maybe i’m too pessimistic, I give it 2-10 years.
Texas,
You ever speak to someone who lived under Communist rule in Russia? Trust me, brother, we have a LONG way to go before 500 people stand in line for 1 piece of sausage.
You see …. Hank must be off his meds again. He was the one that stated that the USMC, as a force for good not evil, had the capabilities to capsize the Island of Guam. So I told the folks at work yesterday that the next thing the Dems were going to propose is the limitation of free speech by the “Super PACs” because it somewhat evened the playing field. This is what this is really about. No free speech for PACs then no Free Speech for the unions…. we’ll see how far that flies. 🙂
http://conservativevideos.com/2012/11/dem-congressman-hank-johnson-amend-constitution-to-restrict-freedom-of-speech/
Hank is almost incomprehensible in his speech. One thing is sure…He and his friends are dangerous to the liberties of the American people.
Looks like he needs to wake up, right? Has he been livin under a flippin rock for cryin out loud?
And yet, people elect fools like this and place real power in their hands. Ace over at AOSHQ posits:
“Maybe people can start to think about larger principles than the instant issue. Maybe people — maybe even liberals — can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen’s freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps.”
http://minx.cc/?post=335346
I’m not very hopeful.
Shhh,,, you’re sounding libertarian.
Gettin’ there.
Rapidly.
Sorry, I have to disagree with y’all on libertarian.
Maybe;
Locke-Jeffersonian
Can’t use “liberal” since the Marxists have adopted and ruined the term.
B. is ruining the term. Take this quiz from Gary Johnson’s site: http://www.isidewith.com/
(Actually. Romney scored 92% for me and Johnson 91% ….that’s a first…..)
Kells,
I am not “ruining” the term. I know very well what a libertarian is. I have debated them — many times. And I am telling you that a Libertarian is NOT the same thing as a Classic Liberal, and it is certainly not the same thing as an American Conservative.
So, if you are going to argue that Libertarians support the constitution AS IT WAS RATIFIED, then you have either:
A — redefined libertarian or
B — you are lying about supporting the Constitution as ratified.
Here’s a hint for those who think definitions and history don’t matter (that’s a postmodernist, progressive argument, by the way): the ANTI-FEDERALISTS were the libertarians — AND THEY LOST!
OK, I see we have some disagreements here on this very intellectual site. I really enjoy all the learned minds debating the intricacies of various political theories, but I am a simple woman with simpe needs. Whether my title is conservative, republican or libertarian doesn’t matter much to me. What I care about is my country and that daily my freedom, my liberties, my choices are being stripped from me and my fellow Americans.
So far Obama and his band of progs have been pretty unstoppable, they have won the presidency twice while practicing the dirtiest style of thug politics that I grew up calling “the Chicago way.” Its my belief that we need to be bold, take control and set the agenda for once. We need to change the conversation, take over the public discourse and adamantly present our needs in a way that gets the ball back in our court.
Promoting secession is a great way to refocus the discussion. Does that mean that we will actually have to secede? Sssshhhhh, no it doesn’t, but don’t tell the opposition. I spent most of my career doing two tasks–sales and negotiation and I can assure that what I walk in the door aramantly proposing is not my bottom line. My goal is to get you as close as possible to giving me 100% of what I want while giving you just a small sliver of what you want.
So far Obama has negotiated the GOP into the corner over and over again. It’s time to change strategies, to throw the administration a curve or two, or three, it’s time to blow their minds. Secession, it’s whats up for discussion!
Sadly, I feel that may very well be met with the same fate as the anti-Muslim filmaker….
I think their are definite risks, but I believe we have to at least attempt to get the upper hand.
Trapp,
Words are nothing more than boxes into which we put basic ideas or concepts. HOWEVER, if we all use the same box (word) but we put different things into it (ideas/concepts) without FIRST making sure we tell each other what is in our box, we can all run off preaching what we “think” is the same thing (let’s say “conservatism”) only to find out that your “conservatism” was Classic Liberalism, AW’s ‘s “Libertarianism” and Melfamy’s and someone else’s idea is “Progressivism.” Result? MASS CONFUSION with everyone pointing fingers and calling each other a liar. In other words: pretty much what we have now.
I suppose I suffer from my training in philosophy which tells me that, if I want to have a meaningful discussion about ANYTHING, we must all agree to the meaning of the words we are using first. otherwise, we end up at this postmodernist utopia where everything can mean anything or nothing at all. Confused? Well, that is by design.
As for the REAL solution to our troubles: no, it isn’t secession. But if the States start pushing it, you might get to the real alternative — a 3rd Constitutional convention. BUT BE WARNED! If we do that, we cannot send ANYONE from EITHER PARTY! We need to find the TEA Party types because, contrary to the clap-trap the media will tell you, they are as mixed a bag of patriots as we were at the time of our founding and, –like you and I — they just want what is best for the country, but they still hold to the founding principles of this country.
Anything less than this will result in the end of this nation as it was founded.
I thought some secession petions had already been turned down. Am I wrong?
ok- so you DO realize he is talking about a constitutional amendment to amend Citizens United?
And weren’t you just posting about Adam Smith the other day…who in wealth of nations warned us of the corrupting and destabilizing influence of corporations?
What’s the bumper sticker? “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when texas executes one” ?
The monied people behind these corporations have always had the right to spend as much of their money on elections as they wish- they just had to put their damn name on their ads so the american citizenry knew who was trying to lie to them…or tell the truth. But thanks to citizens united they can hide behind pacs with BS names.
But I suppose you are fine with corporate largess taking over one of the most sacred responsibilities and rights granted to the individual- the vote. How exactly does one interact with, debate, confront…a corporation?
How odd that in just the past week you have quoted Bastiat and Smith- people whose writings overwhelmingly oppose the viewpoints you routinely express here. But I suppose I should expect nothing else from someone who claims to study the big book of contradictions (the bible) to pick and choose the verses that support *their* view while ignoring the remainder…