Ted Cruz drops bombshell: Senate Democrats to ‘repeal the First Amendment’ this year

a reply to: theantediluvian

Except illegal campaign financing would be a crime?

Illegal campaign financing already *IS* illegal.

Many politicians have been convicted of receiving "illegal" cash.

Never seems to stop the next guy does it.

You like to spin and deflect too much.

Time to get into reality !!

Limiting campaign finance "free speech" will cause illegal cash to flow.

I say let them all spend into the ionosphere and let half of them be losers.

Besides, many big "contributors" spend on both candidates anyway.

At least we can see who is buying who now.

RAWstory news.... ???

I see the writers painting the words spoken by Ted in a different manner than he intended

this seems a diversion to the obvious fact that the Obama regime is collapsing on itself daily... the zombie-sheeple are shaking their slumbering brains awake ~late, but that's another topic~ the race baiting & Muslim sheltering regime is rotting & flaking away right before our eyes ----FINALLY


hey Biden won't be a complete disaster to finish out this office holder cycle ... will he?







hey again.... the Congress reaffirmed the NDAA for any Americans--- who actively support AQ or other terror groups ~ to receive Indefinite Detention---
Last I heard,,, the Benghazi crap was a covert action to supply Arms/Weapons/Munitions to AQ in Syria...dreamt up by Obama & his fast-&-furious team and operated by black-ops in the CIA...

Where is the Law to arrest & indefinitely detain these culprits ? no we get back-wash reports about Ted Cruz by the bought-paid-for media instead... let the administration golf at guantanamo prison.

It kills me how so many people seem to gladly/blindly go along with things that are so clearly against their own best interests. I swear, it’s a miracle this nation manages to survive at all considering the buffoons WE ELECT to run the joint. To think, Ted Cruz was actually elected to office, the taxpayers are willing to give him 175+ grand/yr, as well as all the money he must make on speaking gigs, kick-backs, etc. and FOR WHAT? He hasn’t done a single thing in office other than shut the government down, costing us an additional 24 billion bucks, and cause general disruption and obstruction. His accomplishments are ZERO. His “revelations” are typically straight out of the cuckoo’s nest. He’s obviously a flat-out narcissistic sociopath who couldn’t care less about anything other than his own delusions of grandeur. And he works for us? Give me a break...

All the whining and crying about how Big Brother is robbing us of our precious freedom, while in the very same breath praise for those who support the corporate elite and their take over of our once democratic system. Is that convoluted, or what?

I give up. Praise Ted Cruz, up with the Koch brothers, and God Bless America!

originally posted by: theantediluvian

I see your point but in my opinion, the SCOTUS ruling in the Citizen's United vs FEC was in itself an abhorrent and knowingly dubious interpretation of the First Amendment's protections that skipped the slope altogether and went straight into WTF territory.

There have been a LOT of those rulings over the years. My stance is that there is a systemic failure or at least systemic flaw in the SCOTUS that needs addressed, rather than attempting to alter the very fabric our nation was built upon. I'm against editing Constitutional amendments...

There's been frequent talk of Senatorial and Congressional term limits, which I think are a good idea. A better idea (which conveniently gets ignored by the media) is the need for SCOTUS term limits. Life time appointments are ridiculous. Furthermore, there needs to be a reaffirmation in DC that the SCOTUS' only job is interpretation of the law... no setting precident, not lawmaking from the bench, no political tomfoolery, only interpretation of the law.

All that said, I will admit that Cruz is calling wolf a bit here. Amendments take a 2/3rds majority to be enacted. The Democrats have no chance in hell of getting any modification of the First (or any other) amendment passed through DC.

a reply to: olaru12

Isn't he the same guy who read Dr. seuss and talked about ordering pizza for 21 hours...?

Anything that comes out of his mouth, to me, is deemed instantly forgettable.

originally posted by: buster2010
Tell you what Ted when you are finally able to finish green eggs and ham come back and tell me what's happening in DC. Seems like Ted approves that money equals speech.

The Supreme Court says that money equals speech.

What's wrong? Don't forget, it was the Supreme Court that legalized abortion too.

The Court would vacate this proposal in less than a day.

The entire thing is obviously a political play - attempting to set up Republicans once again for being "for the rich" when they try to stick to legal means to redress perceived "problems."

Harte

a reply to: olaru12

When I read stuff like this, I sometimes wish I had been there.
I always enjoy a good laugh, and if he could not explain what the bill was really saying, I would have had to laugh him off the stage.
I'll bet it has been a while since any of these politicians have been forced to explain some of the junk they spew out at these meetings. If it happened more often, they may learn the American people are not all as stupid as they are.
OH, I forget. We are the ones stupid enough to keep electing these jokers.

Well obviously Cruz is lying again. It seems pretty simple to say money doesn't equal free speech without radically altering the 1st Amendment let alone repealing it. And yes we evil leftists that support this (there's support on the right for this too *gasp*) know that it means labor unions and green billionaires too. If you want to start culling corruption, start with getting some money out.

Anyway did anyone take note as to the audience he's stumping to? Ohhh man! Wonder what else he said to these fellers.

Watchmen on the Walls is an international evangelical ministry based in Riga, Latvia. It describes itself as "the international Christian movement that unites Christian leaders, Christian and social organizations and aims to protect Christian morals and values in society."[1] According to a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Intelligence report the group's name derives from the Old Testament book of Nehemiah, in which the "watchmen" guard the reconstruction of Jerusalem.[2] "The cities they guard over today, say the contemporary Watchmen, are being destroyed by homosexuality.

Wikipedia

When will people realize republican rhetoric when they see it? And because this man said this, you are going to have 3/4 of the right wing proponents parroting it like it is the law, when in fact it is not remotely true. This is how the right stirs things up. From personal, real life experience, here is what I have noticed. Most people, at places like church or other gatherings of a social or non-political nature, the majority of people have the tact and decency to not discuss politics.

Yet every single time I have heard someone bring up some political crap, usually anti-Obama, it is always a republican. Always. Not once have I seen a democrat, even a die-hard one, throw common decency and courtesy out the window and start up a political tirade in the middle of one of these places. And I liken this to what has occurred with the last three presidents.

The right is up in arms about Clinton "lying," and they are up in arms. Bush lies and gets us embroiled in war, costing the lives of thousands of US citizens, and the right claims it was the correct thing to do. And today it is this or that, always Obama's fault. My point is that these people are highly selective in their "moral" causes, but it must be pure coincidence that they didn't get upset over the lies of their own party.

Well actually my main point is that those composing the left, on average, have more decency and tact. You do not see democrats fabricating stuff nearly as much as the right, nor blowing things out of proportion in an obvious attempt to hurt their opponents. What this man is doing is a BLATANT lie, yet somehow I imagine the right will find a way to justify it. Sure, Clinton lied to the American people, but I suppose that lying to the people is only wrong when you're president right? Bush, oh, that's right. I cannot grasp the logic of some of the right-wing proponents. Likely because it is non-existent. Fox News is the CT USSR of the republican party by the way, and I imagine that what this man said will be defended "somehow" there.

a reply to: St Udio

hey again.... the Congress reaffirmed the NDAA for any Americans--- who actively support AQ or other terror groups ~ to receive Indefinite Detention---

Yep. I made a thread about it last night but it didn't really draw much attention. I'm afraid my title wasn't provocative enough:

NDAA Passes House, Important Amendments Don't

Just an FYI since you're trying to make this into a partisan battle. The amendment to sunset the AUMF was killed by House Republicans though as I point out several times, the Obama administration has used it just as the Bush administration as the basis for their authority. They also killed an amendment to close Gitmo which of course has been kept open by the administration citing the AUMF.

Back to the topic:

Ted Cruz is a phony. Groomed from childhood (at least since 13) by oil industry parents, attending not one but two ivy league schools before putting in his years in the mainstream GOP establishment. He's got a penchant for mischaracterization as he's demonstrated time and time again.

Did cnsnews.com also paint his words differently than he intended them to be taken?

“When you think it can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz said at the FRC’s Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. “This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.

“They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth,” Cruz said to an audience of hundreds of pastors from across the country.

“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the pres

source - cnsnews.com

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: CB328
What is free about letting organizations spew propaganda to influence elections and subvert the votes of informed and thinking people like ourselves?!

This absolutely needs to happen and I will support it 100%.

You want to end free speech are you mad?!

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with stopping people from outright buying elections.

a reply to: xuenchen

Illegal campaign financing already *IS* illegal.

Many politicians have been convicted of receiving "illegal" cash.

Never seems to stop the next guy does it.

The point I was making was pretty clear. Just because evil men do evil things even when there is a law against it, doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist.

I say let them all spend into the ionosphere and let half of them be losers.

Of course you would. You're in love with propaganda.

You like to spin and deflect too much.

Time to get into reality !!

An insult from you is the highest praise I could possibly hope to receive, thanks!

a reply to: luciddream

cruze was never any good

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Just as the Democrats did when they controlled the House. Why do you think parties on both sides are going after their "deep pocket" members?

I reject the notion that money is free speech and that businesses are an entity on par with a human....

a reply to: burdman30ott6

There have been a LOT of those rulings over the years. My stance is that there is a systemic failure or at least systemic flaw in the SCOTUS that needs addressed, rather than attempting to alter the very fabric our nation was built upon. I'm against editing Constitutional amendments...

There's been frequent talk of Senatorial and Congressional term limits, which I think are a good idea. A better idea (which conveniently gets ignored by the media) is the need for SCOTUS term limits. Life time appointments are ridiculous. Furthermore, there needs to be a reaffirmation in DC that the SCOTUS' only job is interpretation of the law... no setting precident, not lawmaking from the bench, no political tomfoolery, only interpretation of the law.

I agree wholeheartedly. Lifetime appointments are asinine and without a shred of merit. I was just ranting about SCOTUS lifetime appointments to my wife and our friends a few days ago.

Hopefully we can go after the second next.

No, but seriously. There's already been state legislation trying to initiate a constitutional convention to do what the senate is trying to do.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Senate and House elections at the Federal level cannot be subjected to term limits. Several states tried passing laws to do just that and the court struck it down. The ruling noted that the US Constitution established the criteria to become a Senator / Representative and no where in that info did it discuss term limits.

In order to impose term limits on federal positions you will need a constitutional amendment to do so.

As for lifetime appointments Congress can exercise their oversight and impeach these people (judges) however any such move will most likely have a nasty blowback. The courts are one area where politics needs to get the hell out of.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Well actually my main point is that those composing the left, on average, have more decency and tact. You do not see democrats fabricating stuff nearly as much as the right, nor blowing things out of proportion in an obvious attempt to hurt their opponents.

Weren't we supposed to be watching NYC under 10 feet of water several years ago thanks to GLOBAL WARMING?
Benghazzi?
There's no liberal bias in the media or Hollywood?
"I invented the internet?"
"If you like your health insurance, you can keep it?"
"Mitt Romney wants to fire Big Bird?"
The Fast and Furious program?
"I will not use signing statements?"
"Obamacare isn't a tax?"
"Hey SCOTUS, Obamacare, it's a tax?"
"I won't raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000?"
"For over 200 years the Democratic party has lead the fight for civil rights?"
"I will have the most transparent administration in history?"
"The IRS isn't targeting anyone?"
"The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk before I sign them?"
"Congress was not told about 'enhanced interrogation' methods prior to authorization of Gitmo?"
"Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years?"

I could continue this, but I think my point is made (and will continue to be made essentially everytime Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama open their lying pie holes and speak words from them.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: CB328
What is free about letting organizations spew propaganda to influence elections and subvert the votes of informed and thinking people like ourselves?!

This absolutely needs to happen and I will support it 100%.

You want to end free speech are you mad?!

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with stopping people from outright buying elections.

IF that is the sole intent and extent of the amendment, it would adversely impact democrats as much as republicans, if not more.

Therefore I could support this 100% in that case.

Well, I'm very very happy that I followed my instincts early on with Ted Cruz and have never publicly supported the guy. He reminds me of the worst of the right, and HOW closely it really does resemble the worst of the left. Both extremes just say crap because it sounds good. It doesn't have to have any real basis or truth in spirit or meaning...it just has to be "technically" correct to say at a legal standard.

First of all, when the Supreme Court says a law sucks so it doesn't count, it is the JOB of Congress to at least consider rewriting whatever failed so spectacularly that it reached the 9 Robed Ones in the fist place, let alone went the other way on them.

I'm not sure if this one gains any ground or not, but that's a pretty small list of co-sponsors by Congressional standards, as one indicator. Also..there is historical fact to consider.....and this was a 2011 story for count.

Of 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed

So..I say it's a fine exercise in how you can throw any idea out on the table in our system, however inane, poorly thought out or...worse..WELL thought out in this example, while at the same time? Statistically carrying little to no chance of actually getting anywhere near done. Not in that form anyway...

Still... Cruz is an idiot. This clearly states that it is to deal with Federal Elections and even specifically excludes incorporation or the impact of carrying it's meaning to anything at state level or below. So......It limits money to buying our politicians in 3 slots Americans vote for. Senators, Congresspeople and the President. That's generally the federal ball of wax right there.

My ONLY problem with this and everything else related to Citizens United and why I'll do all I can to resist any attempt to undo that decision is that it's not specifically covering ALL sides of funds running at the level of buying our political system. Just SOME areas, and big ones at that ....leading to a fundamental and profound imbalance, largely along party lines.

Make a Constitutional Amendment that says the 500+ members of Congress and the President MUST take PUBLIC and finite sums for election ..and *ONLY* those funds. Period. No loopholes, exceptions, fine print, legaleze, references to sub-parts of sub-sections to segments of other codes, and NO B.S.? I'll put considerable effort into supporting it. The principle is right ....the way of implementing it is very bad, and Cruz is still an idiot bubbling over with hyperbole like Old Faithful.