The Democrats’ anti-constitutional constitutional amendment. Updated

May 19, 2014
"Senate Grinch"

Hates free speech

Upset by court rulings that, in effect, declare that “free speech” really means free speech, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) introduced a constitutional amendment granting Congress sweeping powers to regulate campaign expenditures, both monetary and “in kind.” This amendment has the full support of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):

“The shadowy Koch brothers are attempting… a hostile takeover of American democracy,” Reid charged Thursday. “No one should be able to pump unlimited funds into a political campaign.”

Reid urged his fellow lawmakers to support a proposed constitutional amendment, written by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall and co-sponsored by 40 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats, that would give Congress the right to regulate all political contributions and all spending of any kind in all federal elections. (It would also give states the power to do the same in state elections.) The Supreme Court has held such far-reaching restrictions to be unconstitutional, which is why Reid wants to take the extreme step of changing the nation’s founding document.

“Amending our Constitution is not something we take lightly,” Reid said. “But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced.”

You know, I fully expect Reid to soon start ranting about strawberries. But, back to the Left’s latest assault on free speech, here’s the key excerpt from the proposed amendment:

Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office, and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Byron York is right, of course: this amendment has no chance of passing the Senate and House, where two-thirds votes are needed, nor has it any chance of being approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. It’s another attempt to find an issue that will get their base voters excited for the coming election and distract from the rolling Obamacare disaster by invoking two great liberal demons — the Koch brothers (1) and the Citizens United decision.

What is disturbing, however, is Reid and the Democrats’ willingness to put themselves on record as willing to curb our fundamental freedoms, free speech being a natural, unalienable right, in pursuit of short-term electoral goals. It’s emblematic of progressivism, which sees the Constitution as obsolete, and of the Democrats’ predilection for putting their narrow electoral interests ahead of the nation’s well-being — for instance, undercutting American forces even before they enter battle in order to oppose a Republican president. It’s not new, however; we’ve seen plenty of examples in recent years of anti-democratic Democrats, such as former Governor Perdue of North Carolina suggesting that congressional elections be delayed, something not even done during the Civil War, largely because her party was set to do poorly.

It’s not that this amendment would be unconstitutional –by the nature of the process, ratification would make it part of the Constitution and therefore “constitutional”– but its very nature is profoundly and disturbingly anti-constitutional, striking at the concepts of natural rights that are foundational to the Republic. Political speech must be free to have any meaning at all, and that includes expressing your political opinions by donating money and time or other property to further a cause or support a candidate. That the Democrats would think of attacking this fundamental freedom in order to excite their base speaks of a deep rot within their party (2), something that should concern us all.

PS: Take a look at this list of the biggest donors since 1989, and note a couple of things: first, 11 of the top 16 at least lean Democratic. You don’t find one that leans Republican until number 17. And the evil Koch brothers, whom Harry Reid denounces daily like Cato demanding the destruction of Carthage, only place 59th on the list. That alone reveals the vile cynicism of his bleatings: the Majority Leader of the United States Senate by name demagoguing against two American citizens, regardless of the truth. Second, the proposed amendment would require statutes passed by Congress to be implemented. Take a good look again at that donor list: unions and other groups have donated tens of millions to the Democrats, with unions also providing invaluable in-kind donations in the form of campaign volunteers. Does anyone think the Democrats, given half a chance, wouldn’t write implementing legislation that somehow allowed these groups to keep right on helping Democrats? If so, raise your hand; I have a bridge to sell you.

Footnotes:
(1) A pair of libertarian billionaires who are apparently plotting to take over the government with the horrifying goal of leaving us alone. Where do I sign up?
(2) Not that I wholly excuse Republicans. John McCain’s sponsorship of the hateful McCain-Feingold bill revealed him as a constitutional lightweight.

UPDATE: National Review’s Charles Cooke wrote about this a few days and had the following to say:

The move is the final act of a contrived and hamfisted morality play, whose purpose is to cast the Democratic party and its allies as champions of the people and the Kochs as a proxy for all that ails America. Lofty as its broader goal may seek to be, the whole endeavor nevertheless carries with it the ugly smack of the Bill of Attainder — of a change to the nation’s constitutional settlement that serves largely to punish two people that the man with the gavel disdains. Rambling in the general direction of a BuzzFeed reporter earlier this week, Reid inadvertently revealed something about his motivations. His reelection to the Senate in 1998, he griped, “was awful”: “I won it, but just barely. I felt it was corrupting, all this corporate money.” Translation: I almost lost my seat once, so I need the supreme law to protect me. Corruption, schmorruption. This is about power.

Do read the whole thing.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Obamacare Chronicles: To Harry Reid, this man is likely a liar

March 5, 2014
"Obamacare has arrived"

“Obamacare has arrived”

Remember kiddies, it was just a few days ago that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate said that all the Obamacare horror stories were untrue, asserting by implication that the people behind those stories were all liars. Then he softened it to “most.” (How gracious of him.) Many have already come forward to call out his arrant nonsense, but perhaps few stories are as frightening and maddening as that of Fred Rosamilia, who was told after his cancer surgery that his Obamacare “gold plan” would not pay his doctor bills:

The Rosamilia’s told Fred’s doctors that they had enrolled in the new plan. They were met with positive reactions from the doctors. The doctors told them that it was a great plan and that they accepted it.

After his surgery, the Rosamilia’s received their bills and were disappointed to find that their insurance company had only covered lower costing, high co-pay procedures.

Lynne then overheard the nurses saying that they would not be able to treat Fred for the next 60 days, now leaving them with huge medical bills.

Heckuva morale-booster for a guy fighting for his life, no?

Eventually the Rosamilia’s were allowed to switch to a “silver” plan that, it seems, will cover the future treatment (we hope), but they’re still on the hook for two months worth of medical bills. Imagine what that probably adds up to.

This kind of real-life American Horror Story is happening again and again across the nation, or so we’re told. To Harry Reid, a vile, shriveled fool if there ever was one, Mr. Rosamilia and all those like him are probably liars.

I wonder if he kicks puppies, too.

The only liars here are the Democrats and everyone who sold this anti-constitutional monstrosity as an improvement on the prior health-insurance system, that it would lead to wider coverage, lowered costs, and better treatment. That people could keep the plans they liked and the doctors they trusted. Lies, lies, and more lies. One lie after another, from the President on down, meant to sell snake oil to a nation that didn’t even want it — and still don’t.

Sideshow carnies have more integrity.

What the Democrats have done to the nation, what they are doing now to people like Fred Rosamilia, is unforgivable. They deserve nothing less than the electoral version of what Rome did to Carthage.

Bring on November.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Good God. Is Harry Reid really this stupid? UPDATE: Yes. He. Is.

October 19, 2011

I’m afraid the answer is “yes.” According to the Leader of the Majority Party in the US Senate (1), private-sector jobs are “doing fine.” It’s the public sector that is truly suffering in this economy. He’s either stupid, or a shameless and cynical hack pol who doesn’t give a damn about the truth.

I vote for (C), all of the above:

And in case you don’t believe your ears:

“The massive layoffs we’ve had in America today—of course they’re rooted in the last administration—and it’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. It’s the public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation’s all about. And it’s unfortunate my friend the Republican Leader is complaining about that.”

How’s that again, Harry?

"Private sector jobs are doing just fine." --Harry Reid

“Orwellian” comes to mind. If anything, the Stimulus Porkulus plan was intended to save the jobs of some of the Democrats’ biggest boosters, public sector employees and their union bosses.

More from Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Here’s another chart to upset Dingy Harry’s version of reality, via PJM:

See? The private sector is okay! Hey, who are you going to believe? Harry Reid or your lying eyes?

Footnote:
(1) That hasn’t offered a budget in over 900 days, in violation of federal law. Now that’s leadership.


Leadership the Obama Way, then and now

July 31, 2011

Via Hot Air, here’s a commercial that will run in several markets to showcase Barack Obama’s rather… “flexible” positions on America’s debt:

And be sure to have a look at this Byron York article on the Democrats and the debt ceiling, which shows what partisan weasels(1) Reid, Durbin, and Obama have been.

Footnotes:
(1) Which fits with their behavior as sleazy, cheap, partisan weasels on the Iraq War, too. At least they’re consistent.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Harry Reid, Nanny-Stater of the month

March 2, 2011

Recently, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was invited to speak before the Nevada legislature. What did he talk about? The national debt? America’s budget woes? Other issues of national import?

Nope. Nanny Reid devoted his time to a cause that must have left his listeners scratching their heads. In a state famous for its small-government libertarian attitudes, Harry Reid wins Reason.TV‘s coveted Nanny of the Month award for arguing for a ban on legalized prostitution:

Talk about a kill-joy! And what’s he got against a girl making a living, eh?

Seriously, regardless of what one thinks of prostitution*, this was hardly a topic a United States senator needed to scold his legislators for, although Harry does seem to enjoy scolding. Prostitution typically falls under a state’s police powers; the federal government has no role in this, other than preventing cross-border sex trafficking. But that’s not at issue here: Nevada allows counties to license brothels as they see fit.  Reid’s hectoring is simply another example of federal officials inserting their noses into places they don’t belong, trying to impose one-size fits all policies to social issues where there may be strong regional differences in opinion. It’s not only nannyish, it goes against our federal system of divided powers.

So, knock it off, Harry. Let Nevada handle its own problems, and you deal with the national issues your voters elected you to deal with.

*For the record, I favor decriminalizing prostitution both because it is a consensual act† between individuals that shouldn’t be government’s concern and because I support a broad private right to make a contract between adults, including sex in return for payment. I also think that many of the problems associated with prostitution (STDs, white slavery, pimping) would be eliminated or greatly lessened by decriminalization. And it would allow more law enforcement resources to be directed toward genuine sex crimes, such as child pornography and child prostitution.

†On the other hand, I don’t agree with the idea of the legalization of hard drugs, since I haven’t been convinced that the social costs would be outweighed by the gain in individual liberty. Yet another reason why I’ll never be a “Big L” libertarian.

UPDATE: Edited to fix some really sloppy typing. Yeesh.


The arrogance of King Harry Reid

January 7, 2011

I wrote yesterday in my post about Steny Hoyer that the Democrats’ attitude toward those who oppose them is a form of oligarchical arrogance. Today, Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the inaptly named Democratic Party, provided another example: when asked about the coming House vote to repeal ObamaCare, he stamped his foot, said it would never come to a vote in the Senate, and told the Republicans to get a life:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made clear Thursday that as long as he’s in charge, no effort to repeal the health care law will see the light of day beyond the House, but Senate Democrats said they are open to changing parts of the law over the next year.

“The Republicans have to understand that the health care bill is not going to be repealed,” Reid said. “Are we saying the health care bill is perfect? Of course not. We’re willing to work in any way that’s constructive in nature to improve the health care delivery system in our country, but repealing health care, they should get a new lease on life and talk about something else.”

This, of course, is a continuation of the public war of words between the Senate Democratic leadership and the House Republicans, lead by newly-minted Speaker Boehner. But, did I say “arrogance?” Maybe “childish petulance” is more in order. Little Lord Harry isn’t just saying he will oppose the bill in debate and do all he can to defeat it in a manner befitting the world’s greatest democracy. Nope. He instead threw a tantrum and announced beforehand that he will not even allow it to be considered. Forget it. Don’t even try.

What’s next? Holding his hands to his ears and screaming I’M NOT LISTENING!! whenever someone brings it up?

In effect, Reid not only flipped a finger toward the House, but he (and his subordinates in the leadership) have told the American voters to take a hike; what they want does not matter. For over a year, and culminating in the Great Shellacking of 2010, the majority of American voters made one thing clear: they hate ObamaCare and they want it repealed. That is a very big part of why the Democrats lost control of the House, much of their majority in the Senate, over 600 state legislative seats, and a whole slough of governorships.

While I do believe there are times a leader must say “you’re wrong” to his constituents (such as a majority’s desire to deny the rights of the minority), this isn’t one of them. We’re talking about policy here, not unalienable rights derived from Natural Law, and a clear majority of Americans hate this policy with a passion and want Congress to repeal it — at the very least, bring it up for public debate.

But King Harry of Searchlight and his courtiers have said “no.”

You thought we were an angry, smelly mob before, Harry; you ain’t seen nothing, yet.

LINKS: I like this idea a lot.

PS: Dear Nevada, I realize Sharron Angle was a bit of an odd duck, but you honestly preferred Harry Reid? Really? Seriously??

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Does Chris Coons come with a leash, too?

September 16, 2010

I’m not sure being described as Harry Reid’s “favorite pet” is quite the endorsement Delaware’s Democratic nominee for US Senate had in mind:

“I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate,” Reid said.

“Let me tell you about him: A graduate of Yale Divinity School. Yale Law School. A two-time national debate champion. He represents two-thirds of the state now, in an elected capacity. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen him or heard him speak, but he is a dynamic speaker. I don’t mean loud or long; he’s a communicator. So that’s how I feel about Delaware. I’ve always thought Chris Coons is going to win. I told him that and I tried to get him to run. I’m glad he’s running. I just think the world of him. He’s my pet.

Okay, not only is Harry Reid one of the most unpopular men in America, thus making his endorsement less than desirable, but how on Earth does it help a would-be senator to be described in a way that one associates with “docile” and “obedient?” That’ll go over big in an anti-establishment year.

But, more importantly, has he been housebroken?

LINKS: Exurban League works their Photoshop magic.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,942 other followers