I’ve just changed the blob tagline . . .

. . . to something really controversial!

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.

11 Comments

  1. About a year ago in the email group I was referencing something on the “blog” and mistyped it to say “blob.” That has stuck since then.

  2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of a person, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Context matters! No honest and educated person can deny that the context has changed drastically over the last 200 years. Therefore, for purpose of clarification purposes, the First Amendment requires the addition of three words.

    A corporation is not a person, a union is not a person, and money can’t speak, therefore the exercise of their “speech” can be abridged by means of campaign finance laws and election campaign restrictions that are applied to all without discrimination.

    In my view, if we don’t make this distinction, intended by the Founding Fathers as I see it, we will be destroying our democracy by continuing to place the power of our government into the hands of the wealthy and powerful elite, as has been happening at a rapid rate now and for the past three decades.

  3. Perry goes on another paranoid rant:

    In my view, if we don’t make this distinction, intended by the Founding Fathers as I see it, we will be destroying our democracy by continuing to place the power of our government into the hands of the wealthy and powerful elite, as has been happening at a rapid rate now and for the past three decades.

  4. Perry, the NY Times has actually reported that there’s no proof that unlimited corporate or personal donations to campaigns increase corruption. Australia, for example, has unlimited corporate and personal donations to campaigns and Aussies generally view their nation as less corrupt than Americans view our own (the most recent Corruption Perceptions Index rates Australia at 8th and the US at 17th).

    If a nation that recently tried to censor the Internet is whooping us at free speech with little to no ill effects, what exactly does that say?

  5. This whole exchange with Perry is unbelieveable …

    Was this blog up and running when McCain-Feingold was being cricumvented by 527s? Say two years ago? Perry was busy expressing outrage over these organizations was he?

    Of the top dozen PACS from 1989 to 2009 , 10 gave the majority of their campaign contributions to Democrats, while 2 straddled the fence dividing their bets equally.

    Of the 10 in that dozen that gave the majority of their money to Democrats, only one did so by so small a percentage as 64 percent; the other 9 of the top 12, showed an 89 to 97 percent tilt to Democrats in funds disbursed.

    Of the top 15 Political Action Committees, only one, the 15th, gave a majority of its funds, 60/40 prox, to Republicans.

    The next two, the United Auto Workers and the Machinists and Aerospace Workers, gave exactly zero percent of the $50 million they gave to political candidates, to Republicans.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527grps.php

    http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.php?id=41

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Top_All-Time_Donors

    Top Twenty Federally Focused and State-Focused 527 groups, 2004 election cycle
    Some of these listings identify a parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Democratic/liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue, Republican/conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink.

    A total of $439,709,105 was spent by these organizations alone, $307,324,096 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $132,385,009 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups …”

    Perry, you quoted the First Amendment, and then commented:

    “Context matters! No honest and educated person can deny that the context has changed drastically over the last 200 years. Therefore, for purpose of clarification purposes, the First Amendment requires the addition of three words.

    A corporation is not a person, a union is not a person, and money can’t speak, therefore the exercise of their “speech” can be abridged by means of campaign finance laws and election campaign restrictions that are applied to all without discrimination.

    In my view, if we don’t make this distinction, intended by the Founding Fathers as I see it, we will be destroying our democracy by continuing to place the power of our government into the hands of the wealthy and powerful elite, as has been happening at a rapid rate now and for the past three decades.”

    Perry, does your concern to limit the political guarantees expressed in the 1st Amendment, extend only to the classes of fictive, as opposed to natural persons?

    For example is it only general law corporations that you wish to limit when it comes to expressions of, or the funding of the dissemination of, political speech?

    Recognize too, that there are several other rights that Congress is categorically prohibited from infringing; by being constituted in the foundational law as legally beyond its purview.

    Are any of these other limitation on government action in need of revision when it comes to their application to the operations of natural persons?

    Here’s the list:

    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

  6. Perry, the NY Times has actually reported that there’s no proof that unlimited corporate or personal donations to campaigns increase corruption.

    Riiiiiight.

    Thus the vast number of shareholders suing CEOs for throwing money at political campaigns when it brings no returns…

  7. Uh oh, Jeff. Just because you’re wrong 80 percent of the time and reasonable in your debating style 90+ percent of the time, you’re getting trashed by the resident alien Marxist. I’m sure Pooter didn’t even check to find out you’re “one of them”. So, now, you’re “one of us.” How’s that feel?

Comments are closed.