Senator Schumer’s Attempt to Silence Political Speech
by David Bossie
When Senator Chuck Schumer staged an elaborate press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court to unveil his Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”) he noted that:
“Anyone who wants to hide, will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide … so I think there’ll be many fewer of them.”
His words revealed the true motivation of this legislation – it is not transparency but rather silencing speech in this critical election year. The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC restored the First Amendment protection to political speech. Small businesses, corporations, unions, and membership based organizations may now have a voice in the public discourse. The Democratic leadership that is tasked with re-electing incumbent politicians and trying to minimize Democratic losses this November were understandably fearful of what the public may say now that their voices have been restored. One issue the Democrats would rather not let the American people be reminded of is the national 9.5% unemployment rate.
Their solution was the DISCLOSE Act, a piece of legislation that creates a burdensome new regulatory scheme as well as requires that political ads feature disclaimers which may be as long as 14 seconds in length. This will increase the costs to small businesses and membership based organizations that seek to have a voice – many won’t be able to afford the additional compliance costs and will have their voices silenced.
In the four months since Senator Schumer introduced the DISCLOSE Act, we’ve seen it is just one part of a systemic campaign to chill political speech.
Target, a national corporation headquartered in Minnesota chose to make a contribution to MN Forward, an independent expenditure organization whose mission is “to ensure that private-sector job creation and economic growth are at the top of the agenda during the 2010 campaign.” MN Forward has been supportive of Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.
The contribution was made public, and liberal groups have sought to attack the corporation for exercising its rights. Moveon.org has gone so far as to demand a boycott of Target stores. They are attacking Target based on the values and positions of Tom Emmer. It’s important to note that Target did not in fact make a donation to Emmer, but rather to a pro-business political committee.
The facts reveal this contribution was motivated by economic interests. Such speech is exactly what Senator Schumer seeks to discourage with the DISCLOSE Act. His intent to chill speech was again made very clear in a recent email:
“When you buy toothpaste now, the money you spend can be used directly for television ads attacking people that you believe in without you even knowing.”
“Well if you’ve ever shopped at Target, the money you spent on toothpaste might be part of the $150,000 Target donated to run TV ads for an anti-gay, anti-minimum wage candidate in Minnesota just recently.”
“Target apologized for its donation (without taking its money back) once a lot of people got really mad, but next time Target — or any other corporation — is going to be a lot smarter about it.”
Corporate expenditures were legal in at least 26 states prior to the Citizens United decision. While in their respective state legislatures both Barack Obama and Congressman Chris Van Hollen were the beneficiaries of corporate donations. If such contributions did not corrupt Obama and Van Hollen, why now are they so problematic? The DISCLOSE Act is merely a solution in search of a problem.
The campaign against the Freedom of Speech is even more glaring in New York City. The Public Advocate for the City of New York, Bill de Blasio, is using his government position and government owned and operated website to lead a campaign against corporations that dare to assert their First Amendment rights. His website is a clear attempt to dissuade corporations from exercising their First Amendment rights.
For those unfamiliar with the position of “Public Advocate”, de Blasio’s website describes the elected office as “the job of the Public Advocate is, most fundamentally, that of a watchdog, ensuring that all New Yorkers receive the City services they deserve and have a voice in shaping the policies of their government.” I’m not sure if that sounds more like a community organizer or a lobbyist, but regardless, it does not sound like an appropriate forum to wage a political campaign against the First Amendment.
It’s time that incumbent Democrat politicians stop focusing on misguided efforts to minimize Democratic losses this November and start focusing on real issues. With public opinion of Congress currently hovering around 20 percent, the Democrats will lose seats this November based on their record and their policies – their attempts to silence political speech will not prevent that.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
154 Comments
Free speech is such a difficult concept to explain to liberals. They think it only applies to liberals, and that all opposing speech is awful and MUST be stopped.
This person is at the top of my "I can't stand this guy" list. I'd like to see that smirk wiped off his face.
Ever notice how Democrats do not want to impede the flow of bucks from Unions? Do they want legislation making it easy for Union Members to deny money being spent on elections? NOPE
Its OK to buy a car or a service and have your money funneled to democrats through the unions and then given back to the unions in salaries, pensions and bailouts, but not OK when you buy toothpaste from target.
What we need is to contact target about joining a union that is pro business and that is against taxes and regulation, against government debt and government unions.
I despise Chuck Schumer.
Went from law school right into state assembly and then to Congress. Never held a real job, doesn't know a damn thing about real life, truly an elitist statist scumbag.
Vote this jerk Chuck Schumer into unemployment in Nov.
http://www.garyfornewyork.com/
I'm usually a worst case scenario type. It amazes me that they can make my worst case scenarios seem like paradise. The rate they are destroying our country is impressive.
Time to buy more toothpaste at Target!
Once some one spends their money on a product it is no longer their money so they no longer have a say in how it is spent, so their only choice is to find some where else to spend that money but once again they spend it they lose the control of what it is used for. So the only solution to control what your money is used for is to hoard it that way you will be the only one to have you money, but remember the gas you use in your car is not free and neither is that car you are driving.
Why do we allow these chuckle head to dictate to the American people what we can and can not spend our hard earned money on?
It's all Democrats know, shut other people up. S0omething about a shortfall with their intellectual arguments that causes the deficiency.
I noticed McCain-Fiengold didn't stop McCain from spending $21 million to defeat JD.
Have fun finding a union that matches that criteria
to think, the one man who NEVER shuts up wants no one else to speak…
Seems a contradiction- wouldn't someone with diarrhea of the mouth want some feedback? But no. he just wants to hear himself talk. Nice.
Perhaps the good people of New York, when they replace the dilletante Gillebrand with a conservative this fall, will do the same in 2012 with Chuckie. There are some people who TRULY need to go away (Pelosi?), and soon.
Demagogue Scumer is up there on that list…
I imagine that it sucks to be among those who can only sit and watch paint dry – as they sit in the corners they painted themselves into. It is all fine and dandy to revel in those just desserts but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that watching them squirm is the solution.
Republicans has better stand up for the Republic or this is among the last of the pendulum shifts. America will crumble beyond recognition if American Patriots known as defenders of the Constitution do not stand up make themselves apparent now.
Obama has been working hard changing legislation that revealed the path of union campaign donations and at the same time add more light and scrutiny to all other donations…Targeting Target with his thugs.
Schumer has the ethics of a pimp!
SNAKE OIL SALESMAN.
Zero Hedge has a new report about the BP Corexit SCANDAL. This story is far from over.
WHY AREN'T THE BIGs ALL OVER THE COREXIT STORY!
I second that!
Take away Unions and Soros $ and the Dems have absolutely nothing. They would lose to the Green party. Pathetic, transparent, tired, and likely to happen. Keep voting zombies. The host is about to die…..
Chuck "run-on-the-bank" Schumer is so smarmy I don't see how he keeps getting re-elected even if he is from NY.
.
Last I checked, once you bought something, the money belonged to the shop owner to dispense with as he or she pleased.
Why would Target let Obama make them feel bad that they don't support him? Target should double down and sue Obama for threatening them with legislation, like in "Atlas Shrugged."
I think the Tea Party should form just such a Union, the one party system isn't working out for us. With a union we would have more power, with a pro businesses union we would have incredible power.
"As soon as the economic freedom which the market economy grants to its members is removed, all political liberties and bills of rights become humbug."
-Ludwig von Mises
Schumer would be among the first to sue if he was on the outside looking in.
People in power wish to stay in power, and are not afraid to use their power to get what they want.
You know knowing what happened to the Jews under Hitler you would think a Jew would be real careful about curtailing free speech. Look how they were portrayed in Germany which lead to Millions being executed and burned. It amazes me how many are like Schumer doing things that are totally against what is best for them and the rest of us for that matter.
OMG, put a green tint on the skin, and an old beat up Santa hat on his head. Who do ya have?
Schumer's always been on my most Unwanted List too!
Rush said it best, "Chuck U Schumer".
The man is a prototypical lib. Morally superior and smug to the nth degree.
Ok Chickie, how about disclosing names of all individual donors to campaign adds.After all they are spending their earned income just as Target is doing. Shouldn't employers know how their employees are spending their money?
Schumer is slimy! A twin to Mayor Bloomberg. Islamic Mosques lovers! Career crooks, i.m.o.
Just another case of attempting to skirt First Amendment rights by the progressive left. Nov can not come soon enough. That's when the house cleaning begins, and we can never again allow ourselves to be caught sleeping at the wheel.
Obama threat was done through Soro's moveon, this is an automatic orchestrated response of boycott, just like Glenn Beck it will be carried out by the same suspects, unions, soros, and sojourners.
Wow, that picture is creepy as shit. He looks like a maniac pedophile pointing at his next victim.
Embrace the threat, become the threat. G-d alone must be feared.
If they could only speak with clarity. Oh, the day.
Limited Government
The only solution for big government corruption is smaller government – any other solution is self deception.
We must fight back against an un-American tolerance for corruption that has spread throughout government. This corruption takes three forms.
First, there is the “gaming the system” mentality that is exemplified by cases like the “rubber rooms” in the New York City schools, where bad teacher are being paid not to work, and the Long Island Railroad, where as many as 97% of retirees a year receive disability pay.
Second, there is the inherent corruption of big government. Markets are ultimately fair because they empower individual consumers to make their own choices. Bureaucracies are fundamentally unfair because they empower a few insiders who inevitably drift toward cronyism and corruption. The only solution for big-government corruption is smaller government.
Third, there is the corruption of the left, what is best defined as the socialist machine. The left knows if they competed fairly in the political system they would be crushed by the vast majority of Americans who oppose their values.
An America marked by limited government, honest politicians, and a small bureaucracy, and which focuses on fairness and the rule of law, is the antithesis of a socialist America dominated by political machines of big government, huge bureaucracies, and powerful politicians
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://remembernovember.com/
Not one word on the Ground Zero Mosque from Mr Chucky "Cheese" Schumer.
As of November 2, 2010 we will have the opportunity to tell them to kindly (or not so) to close their cake eaters.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." – Animal Farm
Hey look at me Im Chucky I wrap myself in the flag & constitution when it suits me and then use them to squash those who don't agree with me!! Who are the idgets that vote for this DEGENERATE WASTE OF A SORRY EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING? Not even classified as human being in my book he like the rest are nothing but animals to me!
Got a message for you Chucky and all your friends…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWDaWBCk0FE
Target is one of two stores where I can get LitterMaid products for my two cats.
Guess which one I'm going to exclusively patronize now.
King Rat Schumer is up for re-election this year. Send anything you can to his opponent. I want to see him lose.
Message to Politicians, Bias Media and Special Interest Groups http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWDaWBCk0FE
Chuckles only wants a public list of all of the homes of dissenters. It makes it easy to send the purple 'warriors' of the SEIU to terrorize their children, while they are away from home.
Chuck You Schumer.
That's how I feel about commies like you. You try and silence us in an election year, and you will not like the outcome.
BRILLIANT Post Ma'am!!!
I love it and agree 100%.
This is how progressives work. They make a law they say is fair for everyone then figure a worky way around the law so it really only restricts the people they don't like.
I'm sure all their organizations will be relabeled as an exception to this law.
Its like the anti smoking crap. "Oh we're not outlawing smoking… we're just making it practically impossible to smoke anywhere… hee hee hee hee hee… we're so clever."
I'm sure unions, ACORN like groups, Move On and others will get magically relabeled.
I heard a rumor that he has a pistol range in his house. I wonder. If he does. Does it comply with local laws?
Darn him for being to smart and proactive!
Where's that Jew hater, SmedlyB when you finaly need him?
Yes, this Senator is a pin-head.
This guy is so "protected" I could have video of him fornicating with a horse and he would win – even the horse would vote for him.
Hey! Don't go dissing elitists statist scumbags! Chuck doesn't even rise (or sink) to that level.
Hell, our King could get caught porking his Princesses, and they'd come to his defense….
The face of the enemy!
Sounds about right. Could you just see that deposition?
Grammar is your friend. Your remark makes no sense. You missed the class on the difference between to, too, and two during your senior year (known to the rest of us as second grade).
A blatant attempt to silence any political opposition. Chuckie wants to know who is against his agenda so he can try and punish them.
Well, maybe if his ethics improved he would. As is, his ethics resemble Roman Polanski's more.
He can also:
Chuck off.
Shut the chuck up.
Yo mama's so stupid, she called the 7-11 to see when they closed..
I feel an extreme need to shop Target coming on….
What did they tell her?
Hey…if his wife's name were Diane, and they had a kid and named it "Up", they could be the Up, Chuck, and Di Schumers…
Okay, I know that was bad, I blame my medication- lol!
Howya doin', sis?
But no "business" experience…
Does that mean he is lower than a pimp?
They said they were open 24 hours. And she said "All in a row?"
ghostbusters! sorry, just seemed to fit the meter. yeah yeah, grinch.
Another Communist who has got to go.
“When you buy toothpaste now, the money you spend can be used directly for television ads attacking people that you believe in without you even knowing.”…. kinda like giving dues to unions and then unions using those dues to undermine it's own members…
This picture of schummer looks cartoon-ish – a Character of an elitist, liberal pig talking down to his constituency.
You know you really are an annoying little ankle biting jerk.
I have looked at your comments and all you do is gripe and quip and bitch, and attack and call names when you get bored with that.
You never attempt to present an argument, discuss anything in a civil way, show what you believe.
Do you actually have a brain, do you have arguments and positions you believe in and can support? I suspect that you aren't that smart and this is all you know how to do. Go ahead jerk prove me wrong.
Otherwise why do you waste everyones time here? Why don't you go over to daily kooks or just go watch the daily show or something a little more your speed?
Act like a reasonable person or just piss off you little wanker.
His speed = Reverse.
Where does the Constitution guarantee a person, or corporation, the right to anonymous speech? The guarantee is that government will not abridge speech, not that one's speech will never create a popular backlash. The government isn't behind the boycott of Target. The company took an action that damaged its brand name and its business, and its management will now have to answer to shareholders and its board of directors. That's all as it should be.
For a group of people opposed to religious freedom and equal rights, not to mention the 14th Amendment, you spend an awful lot of time pretending to love Constitutional freedoms. Your hypocrisy is laughable.
LOL! Hey sis! I'm doin' great and I can empathize with you about the meds!! I have missed ya and I hope you are feeling better and from the sound of it, you are having a bitchin' day!!
A pimp don't steal your money.
Schumer is a looter, and at that he is one of the most powerful of all the looters and destroyers.
That makes him an evil person.
A pimp is basically a criminal.
Schumer is a tyrant.
Damn. Well. Said.
Period.
Don't make me charge you with a BUI- Blogging Under the Influence. : )
Good point.
Irrelevant since the constitution is NOT a rights granter. It does NOT hand out rights to people. It is a federal government limiter. If you think the constitution grants rights you have NO concept of how it works.
You knowledge of the constitution is laughable. For someone who claims to be a progressive you sure do like to destroy liberty in the name of social planning. Why does you ideology require force to operate? Why can't it be done through voluntary means.
The very fact you would side on taking away anonymity just says you don't have a true liberal bone in your body. Force and coercion, that is all progressivism is about.
BTW if you want to destroy anonymity so much then be our guest and post your real name and address right here. You favor this right?
The population of support in the Big Rotten Apple so much out weighs the rest of NY State he'll never lose.
It looks like we'll never get rid of his lapdog gillibrand either.
But I'll give some $ to their opponents.
Awww…c'mon. It's more fun that way…except I tell stupid jokes, or jokes that no one else gets. LMAO
BTW…Is your email the same? I have a couple questions for ya. I will try to get an email sent out in a little bit.
In other words, you agree that the Constitution does not guarantee anonymous speech. Thank you.
Seems like we've been through this before. Obviously, you are incapable of learning. Which explains your ideological rut. Do you propose that we only pay taxes if we volunteer to do so? Do you believe that military service in WWII should have been strictly voluntary? Do you believe that criminals should volunteer to serve jail sentences? Or are you saying all laws should be voluntary — that they are more suggestions than requirements? As citizens, we have social contract: We get proportional representation in our government, and we agree to abide by the laws our representatives pass. How many scourges, like polio, have been eradicated because of compulsory inoculation? Sometimes, as in case of health and war, individual rights take a back seat to the needs of society. The power rests with the people to decide who makes those calls on our behalf.
Throw this bastard out. He has no right to be in government with his views.
I've actually dealt with him on a client matter back in 2007. The client was seeking to open a major business in New York (over my objections that they were wasting time and money doing anything commercial in the People's Democratic Republic of New York) that would bring in approximately $450 million in new infrastructure and construction development investment and create around 4,500 jobs in a city (Finger Lakes Region) where the unemployment rate was around 14%. These would be all, higher-paying union jobs (which would have paid more if there had been no unions involved, but as always, the union outsmarted themselves), but since there were no campaign contributions being made and "financial incentive contracts" being awarded, the transaction was blocked – after the client had spent more than $500,000 on various local consulting studies and legal and lobbying costs. Schumer lost interest the moment he realized this was above board and there would be no payoffs.
Great American that he is.
Yep…..it's the same.
Your insulting scumbags.
Unless there is an ongoing contribution stream into their pockets, progressives really don't like capitalism.
In their eyes, the state should make, distribute, and sell toothpaste (with a federal healthcare tax seal on it).
First they attacked Wal Mart, and now they are after Target. These two corporations do more to help people than the government could ever dream of doing. They are providing products to people at a fair price and share the profit with the community. Not to mention the jobs they provide both directly and indirectly by all the manufacturers they represent.
Progressives are simply envious of their success. Now let me get back to my B & G clinging.
Don't forget the emaciated dog with the phony reindeer antlers.
Whoville, NY never had it so "good."
No he is just another insane member of Congress (piglosi, dingy reid, mcshamnesty, waters, frank, dodd, and rangle to name a few)….
I'm beginning not to be a fan of litter maid…on our 3rd one that quit working in less than 6 months…arg……
The constitution not guaranteeing anonymous speech is irrelevant anymore that the constitution not guaranteeing property rights is irrelevant. We always have our rights. Now maybe you're arguing that someone else made the claim people WERE guaranteed anonymity in the constitution but you weren't clear.
As for your next questions, lets take them one by one shall we. Perhaps you will then expand your narrow mind:
"Do you propose that we only pay taxes if we volunteer to do so?"
Yes for over 150 years taxes in the US were voluntary. Most certainly people would pay for the real things they think are necessary as opposed to fisting art for homosexuals. Certainly the fed would not have billions to spend on waging wars in other countries. Since Woodrow Wilson gov spenditure has increased exponentially.
"Do you believe that military service in WWII should have been strictly voluntary?" we do this now with Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact a lot of military experts believe drafts are bad ideas. No soldier wants a drafted soldier who doesn't want to be there covering his back. And most men volunteered for service during WW2. Voluntary service is also a good idea since that would avoid vietnam and Korea conflicts.
"Do you believe that criminals should volunteer to serve jail sentences?" Criminals, because they used force and destroyed someone else's liberty/property give up their rights to freedom. That's a concept even progressives understand.
"Or are you saying all laws should be voluntary — that they are more suggestions than requirements?" The vast majority of our current laws are arbitrary any based on how some politician "feels" things should be an not based on reason or logic. There are "just laws" that are enforceable but are a very tiny tiny subset of our current laws. Just laws protect person and property, that is all.
"As citizens, we have social contract:" Obviously you have not thought this out. A social contract is a logical fallacy. A contract is always voluntary. Contracts are not forced, implied or imposed without consent or they aren't contracts. Simply put there is no such thing as a social contract. That is a Hobbesian farce.
"We get proportional representation in our government, and we agree to abide by the laws our representatives pass." We get??? Oh my you are whipped. No you don't "get" things from the government. You tell the government what it can or can't do. We agree to abide by laws when they make sense because it serves our long term self interest to do so. People drive on the right side of the road because it makes sense, not because a law compels them to do so. Take away law and people still organize and find their way forming their own rules. Do you need a cop to tell you how to drive in a parking lot or do you figure that out yourself.
"How many scourges, like polio, have been eradicated because of compulsory inoculation?" None. Most people see the rational in vaccinations and do so anyway. Compulsive "anything" serves no purpose and is usually done AFTER people are already performing the act. Bumpers on cars for example. Cars had bumpers about 40 years before gov mandated them.
"Sometimes, as in case of health and war, individual rights take a back seat to the needs of society." Spoken like a true oppressive statist. Sorry but "society" is not a moral agent NOR has rights. Do 2 people have more rights than you? 3? 5? 20? 200? 2,000,000? A group does not have more rights than an individual. If you destroy liberty for the sake of a majority then you merely practice oppression.
"The power rests with the people to decide who makes those calls on our behalf. " No it does not because regardless the size of a majority they cannot morally vote away liberty or rights. Given that reason you're "society" could vote in slavery. So can I ask is slavery morally wrong in all cases or only if enough people in a society decide against it? Right and wrong are not determined by majority. if that were the case then why do you and other progressives merely accept Prop 8 since the "majority/society" deemed gay marriage wrong?
Your problems are:
1. -You believe in a social contract which is a fallacy-. Contracts are all voluntary.
2. -people must be forced to do things for some "greater good"-. Sorry but people do things because its in their own self interest to do so and they are mostly peaceful beings who merely wish to go about their business. Hobbes is flawed in that IF people require the fear of death to keep them in line or they will destroy each other then the "government" is formed by the very same "evil" people and would have no fear of death since they have all the might. The vast majority of humans are peaceful and merely wish to go about their business. You see government as the sheep herder when in reality it is merely the wolf or the parasite. In fact there can exist NO greater good that isn't a special interest. All greater goods are necessarily the belief of one special interest group so imposing a greater good can ONLY impose a special interest on everyone else.
3. -You believe society is a being or moral agent that has its own will and rights.- "Society" is NOT a moral agent. Only humans are moral agents. You do know what the term "moral agency" means?
You are right now where I was about 27 years ago. As long as you stay in that narrow world and not apply your rules universally you won't have any true integrity. I was there too but those beliefs of yours are all logically flawed. They fail any universal standards and only result in special interest imposing its will on others.
Your ideas are Old-n-busted. Kings and queens in castles telling the dumb serfs how to live their lives is old-n-busted. There is nothing new about what you support, only destruction of liberty, force, coercion and the will of others over the will of the individual.
You are in fact more right on the Pournelle chart (the true definition of left and right based on the french national assembly which is the origin of left and right) than most conservatives. You are a true righty statist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
How about a rule that says that incumbent expenditures must be inversely proportional to a) their time in office and b) the amount of press coverage that they get?
Or maybe a rule that says that all candidates must spend 29 seconds of every 30 second advertisement listing all of their contributors, staff and organization to which they are members but may not mention the candidate's name or any positions that he takes.
We need a massive overhaul of election spending. I think that the final law must be at least 40,000 pages long and must be read in its entirety during each day of the legislature by each congressman individually. Failure to comply would require fines equal to the sum of congressional pay plus all estimated bribes and moneys extorted from constituents.
Why not? These ideas make about as much sense as anything coming out of the mouth of Schumer.
Schumer is a triple threat as a politician. He's vicious, stupid and ugly.
The constitution recognizes some rights, but protects them all (9th Amendment).
Anonymity has always been recognized as a fundamental right since reprisals by government officials are commonplace in tyrannical states. The Founders often wrote under pseudonyms to protect their own identities and avoid attacks by crown officials who could write their own search warrants.
The Stasi, the KGB and OGPU were all created for the purpose of eliminating anonymity and punishing those whose identities were revealed.
The elimination of anonymity and privacy is the essence of every police state in history and Schumer has always pushed hard for the elimination of privacy. He never had a problem with the Patriot Act violations of privacy. Schumer is among the worst scum in congress in this respect, and that is really saying something considering what congress has become.
I voted Democrat because…
- Thinking is too hard.
- I want a Mosque at Ground Zero.
- I am 26, sponging off my mom and I want free Health Care.
- If I knock-up my girlfriend I want government to pay her to kill the baby.
- FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS FINE AS LONG AS I AM NOT OFFENDED BY IT.
- We need to raise taxes on business… Gee… Why do things cost so much?
- Murdering helpless babies is ok as long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
- I want government to give Mexicans free health care and education at your expense.
- Pouring water on a terrorist's face is horrible, but killing a baby in the womb is good.
- I want government to take over industry and apply the efficiency of the US Post Office.
- Global Warming is a fact, even if those same scientists can't tell the weather for next week.
Rep. Charlie Rangle (D-NY) Ethics Violations…
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) Ethics Violations…
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=73395511
Islam – Can You Feel the Love?
http://usataxpayer.org/?002583212
And again you never posted your real name, address, phone number. If you think people shouldn't have anonymity then how come you don't post your personal data?
Now that is funny…
You noticed! I thought it was just me…
Hey IDIOT! Where does the Constitution DENY anonymous speech?
It's taking away BASIC rights, and you ****ing douche baggers defend the tyrrany.
I wish that I had time to correct all your misstatements. But alas.
In no particular order:
1) Your contract is voluntary. You may renounce your citizenship and leave the country any time you like. Actually, entering a contract is voluntary. You violate its terms at your peril.
2) You concede that laws cannot be voluntary. They must apply to all equally or they are worthless. And why do just laws, which by your definition "protect person and property," not apply to healthcare? That is the protection of a person.
3) You argued for an all-volunteer army. But you weasel and waffle when it comes to the meat of the nut: Does government have the right, or not, to compel people to serve in time of war? If the common good never prevails over individual rights, then by what right is the government justified in depriving a man of his life (contra the declaration of independence)?
4) You say that compulsory childhood inoculation did nothing to eradicate polio and other scourges, because most people would have volunteered for them. First, having most people get inoculated wouldn't have eliminated the diseases. It required that almost 100% compliance, a level that only occurs when it is mandated. Second, if most people would volunteer, why didn't they — before they were forced and before the shots were paid for by taxpayers?
5) Are you seriously asserting that the the duties and excise taxes of the 18th and 19th centuries, or the early income taxes, were voluntary?
6) You assert that income tax should be voluntary. Does that mean that half of America could have withheld their tax dollars to protest the Iraq war, compelling a withdrawal? Does that mean that I can choose only those programs I want to fund — say, 100% toward green technology or food stamps or the NEA and 0% for defense and border enforcement — or does that create a completely unworkable system in which no budget could ever be produced and in which our national interests could be undermined? I elect representatives to make those choices on my behalf and balance those needs, even if that means that I am compelled to have some portion of my money spent in ways I object to. You simply can't escape it. Individual freedom is not limitless. You trade some of it away for the opportunity to live in a community, even in a democratic society, where sometimes the greater good must prevail.
7) I never said the majority can take away the rights of the minority. That's your strawman. Our Constitution provides for Congress to act in our collective interest in many cases: It can declare war. It can raise an army. It can lay and collect taxes. These are examples of the greater good trumping individual freedoms. And, as I said, we the people make these calls through our elected representatives. And we agree to abide by the laws our representatives pass.
Your concept of a libertarian wonderland is fanciful and utopian. It is anarchy. If that's what you want, try Somalia. Might be a better fit. I hear they self organize (into warring factions) and volunteer (to rape and pillage).
What social contract states that NO speech shall be anonymous? Why can't an individual CHOOSE? Because you're a tyrant loving, rights hating bigot.
Answering your question. Half the country already pays no taxes, and uses MORE than it's "fair share" of services. Perhaps we should keep a toll of services used, and get a bill submitted to us by the gov't as if from the electric company. Don't use the crappy gov't product, don't pay in. Military service is now voluntary, idiotic comparison. Criminals have infringed upon others rights, just like this LAW, dumb ***. Hence they forfeir their rights.
By the way, I hate your moral relativism. You think YOU can decide what's "good" for society. Not eradicating disease, but the right to anonymity. Do you see how damn far you've gone over the edge you ****ing tyrant?
1) Sorry but that is NOT the claim of a social contract. For example Walmart cannot impose a contract upon me to shop in there store merely because I shopped there once before. Also you could leave the country as well and go to any number of already set up socialist countries. So how come you don't leave?
2) The reason they do not apply to health care is because you cannot obligate one person to care for another against their will. Health care requires others to pay for YOUR health care. That is different than a just law that merely imprisons someone who commits wrong.
3) No it does not have a right to compel others to serve in war. A man can deprive another man of their rights if the other man is committing harm. Thats self defense. Secession from british rule would be the same as leaving society which you stated in #1 is a choice. Nobody is obligated to participate in society nor does society have any right to expel me. All that is required is I do NOT aggress against another moral agent. BTW me not buying yo a car or health care against me will is NOT aggression against you.
4) Actually it is irrelevant. People inoculated would be immune. People not inoculated would get the disease. Therefore there is a rational reason to inoculate. Even IF inoculation served some greater good (who's good?) it never trumps the liberty to choose for one's self. It does NOT require 100% compliance. If people choose not to inoculate then they face the risk of infection.
5) Personal income tax was voluntary. Most taxes were voluntary. yes some tariffs were not voluntary but the majority were.
6) Yes taxes should be voluntary and yes people could withhold taxes so as not to pay for a war they do not believe in. What a great way to deter a war that you progressives claim is illegal anyway. So what would you rather have, voluntary taxes that may not pay for a war OR gov waging war against the will of the majority? Yes you should be able to fund anything you like. Are you saying you won't help poor people? Also the gov job is NOT green tech, that is private sector stuff. Government's only job is upholding rule of law, national defense and perhaps the money supply. BTW people contribute privately to the things they think are really important. Americans gave over $350 bil in 2009 during a recession to charity outside of taxation. You elect representatives to make those choices? Like the ones that piled 14 trillion of debt on you and your children and grand children. Don't you think you can manage your money better than people who have created unbelievable debt? What good track record does the gov have again? Please tell me. 14 trillion in debt. My freedom is only limited by my interaction with other moral agents. I can do whatever I like as long as I do not harm another person. I do not LOSE my personal liberty because YOU exist. BTW under your system (the one you back) over 47% pay no federal and little state taxes yet use the vast majority of all those social services. So there goes that whole "fairness" and "who will pay for BLAH" claims.
7) So if these are all "greater goods" then let people voluntarily choose to support them. If the vast majority of people do not think X is worthy of support then how can you or anyone else determine its a greater good other than YOUR bias or special interest. Green tech is a grand example. Let the private sector support it if its a good idea since only they will put it to practical use. Practical use is the best "sniff" test around.
First off libertarian is not anarchy. Secondly Somalia is not anarchy. Somalia is ruled by a principality with an oppressive, military based government that directly oppresses its people and is fed by mostly UN hand outs. The Somolians do not live in a governmentless society, only one run by a ruthless regime. BTW N. Korea is a 100% planned, government run society.. 100% socialism. would you agree its not a utopia?
BTW if you want planned societies why not move to Sweden. Norway… they already have all of what you want set up. No need to change me against my will.
You must be logged in to post a comment.