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

Protesters crash immigration event
By LINDSAY MACHAK and KRIS TURNER
The State News

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., talks before a crowd mixed with supporters and protesters Thursday night on the fourth floor of the MSU College of Law building.

A campus discussion about illegal immigration turned violent Thursday evening, when protesters clashed with the MSU College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom, who sponsored the event.

Kyle Bristow, chairman of the Young Americans for Freedom, or YAF, said he was kicked and spat upon by some of the protesters when he was outside the MSU College of Law, where the discussion was being held. "It saddens me that my fellow Spartans would display this type of behavior," he said. "They are racist. It's sad we need police to come to control these radical leftists."

Unable to identify the people who assaulted him, Bristow said he wasn't planning to file a police report.

MSU police were dispatched to the event after an employee of the law college called the department, MSU police Sgt. Brian McDaniel said. "About 10 to 20 protesters disrupted the event," he said. "We believe they were responsible for pulling the fire alarm."

Protesters said they came to show their opposition to controversial Republican congressman Tom Tancredo, of Colorado, who spoke at the event. Before Tancredo arrived and while the event was being set up, protesters gathered on the fourth floor of the law college with signs that read "Ignorant Racist."

Someone in the building set off a fire alarm twice throughout the evening. After the first alarm was pulled, a few hundred people were evacuated from the building. The person or persons responsible for pulling the alarm could face a misdemeanor or felony charge if caught, McDaniel said.

Randy McPherson, whose sign read "Where's the wall to keep you out?" came to protest when he heard that the congressman would be speaking.

"God works in mysterious ways," said McPherson, a food science and premedical junior, after the second fire alarm was pulled. "(Tancredo) shouldn't be here."

Some protesters weren't allowed inside the discussion room because they had signs, which aren't allowed in the law college. The people who attended to oppose the event said they came to represent themselves — not the minority campus groups with which they are affiliated.

Another student who came to protest the event said she wanted to make sure it was known that Tancredo is racist. "We were here to protest the whole event," said Claudia Gonzalez, an interdisciplinary studies in social science and community relations senior. "It got heated and there was a lot of disagreement and argument. This is a very big issue."

While waiting for the discussion to start, accounting graduate student Matt Ledesma said he witnessed someone being pulled out of the discussion area for spitting on someone. "They were being disruptive," he said. "Someone pulled the fire alarm, which got us all out here."

After everyone was allowed back into the law college, Tancredo addressed a crowd of more than 40 people, who clapped and booed when he began speaking.

His speech focused on illegal immigration in the United States and emphasized looking at the issue with a clear head. "Look, you can't get emotional," Tancredo said during his speech. "Let's just talk about the policy."

He also stressed the importance of a single national language, which he believes should be English, but added he supports people who are bilingual.
"I think diversity is a great thing," he said. "But it becomes a negative thing when it's the only thing."

A 10-minute question-and-answer session was held at the end of the event. Students wrote their questions on note cards, and MSU College Republicans chairman Jeff Wiggins asked a few of the questions. Tancredo left shortly after he spoke, ignoring many of the questions.

Wiggins, who helped arrange the event, said he was surprised at the protesters' reaction. "(Tancredo) was not in the building when this went on," he said. "We were in here setting up. We tried to tell them signs are not allowed in the law college."

Jose Villagran, a interdisciplinary studies in social science senior, asked "Why have you been cited for hiring undocumented workers for personal construction?" His question was not asked by Wiggins, who did not pose controversial questions.

The State News - www.statenews.com

You'll recall that at another Michigan school--Western Michigan University--last year, Pat Buchanan was assaulted by a deranged student who hurled salad dressing at him. Last month, David Horowitz and his bodyguards were attacked by two thugs with a cream pie.

What flavor of liberal intolerance have you tasted today?

Horowitz noted at the annual Restoration Weekend conference:
FrontPage magazine.com :: Restoration Weekend 2006: Storming the Universities by David Horowitz

Leftist ruffians have ensured that if you are a conservative speaker you will never know what might be coming at you. When I spoke recently at Ball State University, it was only a cream pie. I didn’t even see the person who was charging us, but the chief of campus police and Floyd and the policemen present saw her coming and interposed themselves between us, and were drowned by this cream pie. Not a big deal, but three suits had to go to the dry cleaners, and a police officer was cut apprehending the culprits. Refreshingly, they were arrested and had to post bail.

This is the sad state of our campuses.

Indeed, it is. And on and on and on it goes, as Cinammon Stillwell thoroughly documented recently.

When Leftist tries to argue, as they invariably do, that conservatives are as unhinged on campus as they are, ask them to name the last five liberal speakers physically attacked while trying to speak at a college or university.

Do you hear what I hear? Crickets chirping, chirping, chirping.

DIVERSITY DOUBLE-TALKIVY'S 'INCLUSION' EXCLUDES MILITARY
By MATT SANCHEZ
December 4, 2006

Did you hear the one about the Marines that Columbia University invited to campus for Fleet Week?

Not any time in the last few decades, you didn't.

But you might have heard the one about the Marine who was told by a fellow Columbia student that he was stupid for joining the military because he's Hispanic and didn't realize he was being used for cannon fodder.

It's actually kind of funny - but when it happened to me during Columbia's Activities Day last year, I was fighting mad. Not because I was publicly humiliated in front of several hundred of my fellow classmates (any devil dog who has spent a summer on Parris Island gets used to insults), but because of what the incident showed about New York's most prestigious university.

On the surface, Columbia is all for diversity (good, very good) and completely opposed to intolerance (bad, really bad). On any given day, eager undergrads can speak out for Starbucks employees forced to make coffee with non-ergonomic espresso machines, or call for the school to install non-gender-specific bathrooms.

The administration? Well, I've heard Mary McGee, the dean of students, speak with great consternation about the need to be sure that no student populations were marginalized or excluded. To illustrate the point, she pondered changing all the doorknobs on campus to accommodate those with physical limitations who might literally be "shut out." She said that, to date, no student had complained about the smooth metallic doorknobs, "but they should not have to"

I figured that a dean so concerned about student inclusion would certainly look into a simple case of student harassment. You see, I had a problem: fellow student Monique Dols.

Back on Activities Day, Dols didn't just lecture me on my stupidity in serving our nation; she also yelled that I was a baby killer. For a Marine, being called a killer is almost flattering - but for months Dols and her friends had been disrupting pretty much every event I attended.

Most famously, her crowd rushed the stage at another group's event, preventing the guest (from the border-enforcement advocates, the Minutemen) from delivering his remarks, and nearly causing a riot.

That day, Dols claimed to be protesting for the recognition of the humanity of illegal Hispanic immigrants. Yet somehow her concern doesn't apply to a citizen Hispanics proud to serve this country and eager to go to college.

And the Columbia administration seems to agree. Despite bringing national embarrassment to the university with her actions, she's gone completely unpunished.

The university has chalked it up to free speech. All points of view are welcome at Columbia, from Venezuelan presidents to voices from vaginas.

Unless you're in the military.

But Columbia's hypocrisy on inclusiveness isn't just a matter of the apparent immunity that Dols & Co. enjoy. The school also has no faculty member who specifically deals with veteran affairs.

Sure, Curtis Rodgers, the dean of admissions, says veterans are a great asset for the Columbia community - and a very nice woman at the bursar's office will help veterans process their GI benefits to pay tuition. Yet when a Marine deployed to Iraq was having problems clearing up an error on his tuition bill, no one on staff was prepared to help him break through the school's bureaucracy.

Columbia veterans would love to invite Marines and sailors onto the campus during next year's Fleet Week - but we don't want them to experience the Columbia version of a sniper attack. The sad fact that they'd face such an assault is something Columbia University just won't own up to.

DIVERSITY DOUBLE-TALKIVY'S 'INCLUSION' EXCLUDES MILITARY By MATT SANCHEZ - New York Post Online Edition: Seven

Fact Check: Obama, Clinton and the Weather Underground
Thu Apr 17, 6:22 PM ET

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Sen. Barack Obama is defending his relationship with a former radical whose provocative words were wrongly linked by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Facts were loose in both Democratic presidential campaigns Thursday as Clinton sought advantage from her rival's association with William Ayers, a college professor who was once part of the violent Weather Underground group.

The dustup arose in their debate the night before when Obama was asked whether his connection to Ayers raised politically damaging questions about his patriotism.

Obama struck back by calling attention to Bill Clinton's decision to grant clemency to two former Weather Underground members who — unlike Ayers — had been convicted of crimes from that era.

President Clinton's actions freed women who had been serving sentences of 40 years and 58 years after convictions on weapons, explosives and related charges.

Members of the Weather Underground, known initially as the Weathermen, claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including non-fatal but destructive ones at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

In addition, three members died when their bomb-making session at a New York City town house went awry in 1970, and several members were convicted in a botched 1981 Brink's truck ambush during which two police officers and a guard died.

Ayers was not implicated in the Brink's deaths and the two former members cleared by Bill Clinton were not convicted of killings.

THE SPIN:

Obama said Ayers is "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and not someone who has endorsed him or talked to him regularly.

"And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense," Obama said.

Clinton said the relationship was deeper than that because both men served together on the board of a charity.

Ayers, she said, made comments "which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.

"And what they did was set bombs," she went on. "And in some instances, people died."

THE FACTS:

Clinton's implication that Ayers made hurtful comments connected with the terrorist attacks is wrong.

By coincidence, a story about Ayers and what he called his fictionalized memoirs appeared in The New York Times on the day of the attacks.

The story was based on an interview he had done earlier, in Chicago, in which he declared, "I don't regret setting bombs," and "I feel we didn't do enough," even while seeming to dissociate himself coyly from the group's most destructive acts.

Clinton is correct that both men served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Ayers joined the board in 1999 and is still on it. Obama left it in December 2002 after nine years.

Ayers was clearly more than someone Obama just ran into in the neighborhood on occasion. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers had Obama to his home to introduce him to others.

But a flub by Obama in the debate suggested he does not know him that well: He called Ayers an English professor. Ayers teaches education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and has been an education adviser to Mayor Richard Daley.

Ayers disappeared after the 1970 town house explosion, although he was not charged in that episode. He and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, surfaced in 1980.

They both faced charges stemming from Chicago demonstrations in 1969 but his were dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct while she pleaded guilty to aggravated battery and bail-jumping.

THE SPIN:

Obama said Clinton was not one to talk about guilt by association because "President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago."

THE FACTS:

Obama correctly sketched out the details of Bill Clinton's acts in the case. However, senior Obama strategist David Axelrod went too far Thursday when he said the two cleared by President Clinton had killed people. They were not convicted of that.

Bill Clinton created an uproar with New York lawmakers from both parties and with police when, on his last day in office, he granted clemency to Susan L. Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans.

Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years after being caught unloading 740 pounds of dynamite and weapons from a car in New Jersey in 1984. She was wanted on charges related to the deadly Brink's ambush but never tried on them, and Clinton's order released her after 16 years behind bars.

Evans was captured in 1985 along with one of the fugitives from the Brink's robbery, whom she was accused of harboring. Evans was sentenced to 40 years on a variety of weapons and terrorism-related convictions, including the 1983 Capitol bombing plot.

Although Hillary Clinton publicly disputed her husband's offer of clemency to Puerto Rican nationalists in 1999 because they had not sufficiently renounced violence, she is not known to have objected to his freeing of Rosenberg and Evans in 2001.

Analysis by Christopher Wills and Calvin Woodward

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/...LGa2X5ykxh24cA

Frank Lautenberg’s Civics Lesson of the Day: Our Constitutional Freedoms Come From… Democrats?
By Doug Powers • March 25, 2011 04:31 PM ** Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Here’s a lesson on the Constitution that’s worthy of a Schoolhouse Rock parody if anybody can think of a word that rhymes with “Lautenberg.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg was speaking at a Planned Parenthood demonstration and let loose with this (transcript by way of Hot Air http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/2...-constitution/ ):

The Republicans in Congress claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway.

Well that sure is nice of ya, Frank!

Lautenberg & company decide who’s given access to the freedoms in the Constitution? It’s not surprising that those words rolled so easily off Laut’s tongue, seeing as he was standing in front of a bus plastered with the logo of an organization dedicated to helping decide who does and doesn’t deserve the freedom to live.

RISE OF THE OBAMABOTS
Stifling Liberal Dissent Under Obama
Ted Rall Ted Rall – Mon May 16, 8:02 pm ET

NEW YORK--After they called the presidency for Obama, emails poured in. "You must be relieved now that the Democrats are taking over," an old college buddy told me. "There will be less pressure on you."

That would have been nice.

In the late 1990s my cartoons ran in Time, Fortune and Bloomberg Personal magazines and over 100 daily and alternative weekly newspapers. I was a staff writer for two major magazines.

Then Bush came in. And 9/11 happened.

The media gorged on an orgy of psychotic right-wing rhetoric. Flags everywhere. Torture suddenly OK. In a nation where mainstream political discourse was redefined between Dick Cheney on the right and libertarian Bill Maher on the not-as-right, there wasn't any room in the paper for a left-of-center cartoonist. My business was savaged. Income plunged.

My editor at Time called me on September 13, 2001. "We're discontinuing all cartoons," she told me. I was one of four cartoonists at the newsweekly. "Humor is dead." I snorted. They never brought back cartoons.

McCarthyism--blackballing--made a big comeback. I had been drawing a monthly comic strip, "The Testosterone Diaries," for Men's Health. No politics. It was about guy stuff: dating, job insecurity, prostate tests, that sort of thing. They fired me. Not because of anything I drew for them. It was because of my syndicated editorial cartoons, which attacked Bush and his policies. The publisher worried about pissing off right-wingers during a period of nationalism on steroids.

Desperate and going broke, I called an editor who'd given me lots of work at the magazines he ran during the 1990s. "Sorry, dude, I can't help," he replied. "You're radioactive."

It was tempting, when Obama's Democrats swept into office in 2008, to think that the bad old days were coming to an end. I wasn't looking for any favors, just a swing of the political pendulum back to the Clinton years when it was still OK to be a liberal.

This, you have no doubt correctly guessed, is the part where I tell you I was wrong.

I didn't count on the cult of personality around Barack Obama.

In the 1990s it was OK to attack Clinton from the left. I went after the Man From Hope and his centrist, "triangulation"-obsessed Democratic Leadership Council for selling out progressive principles. Along with like-minded political cartoonists including Tom Tomorrow and Lloyd Dangle, my cartoons and columns took Clinton's militant moderates to the woodshed for NAFTA, the WTO and welfare reform. A pal who worked in the White House informed me that the President, known for his short temper, stormed into his office and slammed a copy of that morning's Washington Post down on the desk with my cartoon showing. "How dare your friend compare me to Bush?" he shouted. (The first Bush.)

It was better than winning a Pulitzer.

It feels a little weird to write this, like I'm telling tales out of school and ratting out the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. But it's true: there's less room for a leftie during the Age of Obama than there was under Bush.

I didn't realize how besotted progressives were by Mr. Hopey Changey.

Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn't include a single liberal.

It got worse after that: Obama extended and expanded Bush's TARP giveaway to the banks; continued Bush's spying on our phone calls; ignored the foreclosure crisis; refused to investigate, much less prosecute, Bush's torturers; his healthcare plan was a sellout to Big Pharma; he kept Gitmo open; expanded the war against Afghanistan; dispatched more drone bombers; used weasel words to redefine the troops in Iraq as "non-combat"; extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich; claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens; most recently, there was the forced nudity torture of PFC Bradley Manning and expanding oil drilling offshore and on national lands.

I was merciless to Obama. I was cruel in my criticisms of Obama's sellouts to the right. In my writings and drawings I tried to tell it as it was, or anyway, as I saw it. I thought--still think--that's my job. I'm a critic, not a suck-up. The Obama Administration doesn't need journalists or pundits to carry its water. That's what press secretaries and PR flacks are for.

Does Obama ever do anything right? Not often, but sure. And when he does, I shut up about it. Cartoonists and columnists who promote government policy are an embarrassment.

But that's what "liberal" media outlets want in the age of Obama.

I can't prove it in every case. (That's how blackballing works.) The Nation and Mother Jones and Harper's, liberal magazines that gave me freelance work under Clinton and Bush, now ignore my queries. Even when I offered them first-person, unembedded war reporting from Afghanistan. Hey, maybe they're too busy to answer email or voicemail. You never know.

Other censors are brazen.

There's been a push among political cartoonists to get our work into the big editorial blogs and online magazines that seem poised to displace traditional print political magazines like The Progressive. In the past, editorial rejections had numerous causes: low budgets, lack of space, an editor who simply preferred another creator's work over yours.

Now there' s a new cause for refusal: Too tough on the president.

I've heard that from enough "liberal" websites and print publications to consider it a significant trend.

A sample of recent rejections, each from editors at different left-of-center media outlets:

· "I am familiar with and enjoy your cartoons. However the readers of our site would not be comfortable with your (admittedly on point) criticism of Obama."

· "Don't be such a hater on O and we could use your stuff. Can't you focus more on the GOP?"

· "Our first African-American president deserves a chance to clean up Bush's mess without being attacked by us."

I have many more like that.

What's weird is that these cultish attitudes come from editors and publishers whose politics line up neatly with mine. They oppose the bailouts. They want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. They disapprove of Obama's new war against Libya. They want Obama to renounce torture and Guantánamo.

Obama is the one they ought to be blackballing. He has been a terrible disappointment to the American left. He has forsaken liberals at every turn. Yet they continue to stand by him. Which means that, in effect, they are not liberals at all. They are militant Democrats. They are Obamabots.

As long as Democrats win elections, they are happy. Nevermind that their policies are the same as, or to the right of, the Republicans.

"So what should I think about [the war in Libya]?," asks Kevin Drum in Mother Jones. "If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted."

Mr. Drum, call your office. Someone found your brain in the break room.

Barack Obama and the Democrats have made it perfectly clear that they don't care about the issues and concerns that I care about. Unlike Kevin Drum, I think--I know--I'm smarter than Barack Obama. I wouldn't have made half the mistakes he has.

So I don't care about Obama. Or the Democrats. I care about America and the world and the people who live in them.

Hey, Obamabots: when the man you support betrays your principles, he has to go--not your principles.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/2011051...Nlb2Z0aGVvYmE-

comments

"I'm a critic, not a suck-up". That is the best admission I have heard in a long time from anyone. It is for that reason that the gossip columnists at that Press/President dinner were so disgusting.

--

It's tough finding out your parents lied to you about Santa Claus.

That said, I have new-found respect for Rall's principled point of view; I don't agree with it, but at least he's a man of principle.

---

Whatever Mr. Rall's reason, at least he knows a liar when he sees one, and has the courage to call them out.

Nancy Pelosi: We need to revise that whole ‘free speech’ part of the Constitution
By Doug Powers • April 20, 2012 12:55 PM

Nancy Pelosi had better hurry, because if her chances of getting two-thirds of both the House and Senate to agree to a constitutional amendment are practically zilch now, they’re going to be zilchier after November’s elections. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...J0iS_blog.html

From CNS News: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelo...irst-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.
[...]
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 role 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.

Will Pelosi’s amendment also regulate union “speech” by putting an end to Big Labor’s Super PAC spending and campaign contributions? (rhetorical question — don’t waste time answering) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1421444.html

Precisely what would Nancy’s revised amendment contain? Come on, she’s not going to give it away — you have to vote to ratify it in order to find out what’s in it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=yUBGsJ5-jfI


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/20...-constitution/

Follow-up to Nancy Pelosi’s First Amendment Amendment announcement
April 20, 2012

I wrote a bit about what I thought may be the positive implications for such an effort http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=39885 — mostly, that it could potentially unleash a classically liberal counter-offensive whereby the amendment process is used to, eg., potentially constrain Roe v Wade, or Wickard — even though it’s clear that the idea behind the effort is to gut the First Amendment and give government near universal control over speech, a direct affront to what has long been considered an inviolable individual right.

But then, I’m not a law professor. Whereas Eugene Volokh is — and he offers his reaction to the proposed Amendment, given the rather Orwellian (and yet perfectly predictable) name “The People’s Rights Amendment” http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/201 .

Writes Volokh: http://volokh.com/2012/04/20/congres...tional-rights/

[...] just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines — which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the “freedom of the press” applies only to “the people,” and section 2 expressly provides that corporations aren’t protected as “the people.”

Congress could also ban the speech and religious practice of most churches, which are generally organized as corporation. It could ban the speech of nonprofit organizations that are organized as corporations. (Congressman McGovern confirms this: “My ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ is simple and straightforward. It would make clear that all corporate entities — for-profit and non-profit alike — are not people with constitutional rights. It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and non-profits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the state that we the people govern, not the other way around.”) Congress could ban speech about elections and any other speech, whether about religion, politics, or anything else. It could also ban speech in viewpoint-based ways.

State legislatures and local governments could do the same. All of them could seize corporate property without providing compensation, and without providing due process. All corporate entities would be stripped of all constitutional rights. Quite a proposal; I blogged more generally about this issue here, but it seems to me that simply listing the consequences of Congressman McGovern’s proposal largely suffices to explain its flaws.

Clearly, Mr Volokh is among those who still believes that, to the people proposing such an amendment, the flaws are bugs and not features.

Which I suppose prevents him from being dismissed as a Visigoth by the more “sane” “conservatives” who don’t share Hobbity fears that the contemporary Democrat Party, being run by the erstwhile New Left, is seeking to carry out an ideological soft coup against the country as founded.

So he’s got that going for him.


http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=39920

Note Congressworm McGovern’s not very clever rhetorical twist:

It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and non-profits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the state that we the people govern, not the other way around.

So, permitting free speech expressed by organizations of individuals in a legal body called a “corporation” is equivalent to permitting corporations to “govern us?”

I am just so tired of the Illegal situation here in the USA. I am fortunate enough to be a citizen here and follow the laws. Why do I feel helpless in my own country to outlaws? Illegals are outlaws, period. They apparently have more rights, entitlements and support than our own citizens. It is a disgrace. I vote, but I still feel powerless.