Posted on 11/29/2012 10:44:38 AM PST by abishai
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says, “corporations control the patterns of thinking” in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.
"We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations," said Johnson.
“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government. They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case,” Johnson said at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum in Georgia in October.
“They control the patterns of thinking," said Johnson. "They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government--don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.
“And these folks," Johnson said, "are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission is that corporations have a right to freedom of speech, including the right to speak about politicians and federal officeholders during an election year.
And what about unions?
All to predictable, coming from the dolt who thought Guam might turn turtle because there were too many Marines stationed on it. Stupid is as stupid does!
Hank Johnson can kiss my ass.
This message brought to you buy crippleceek inc. Corporation of 1.
What about NGOs?
Isn’t this the same one that thought that Guam might tip over if we put too many Marines on the island?
Okay I suggest we star restricting the speech of Rep. Hank Johnson first, since he does not appear to have anything intelligent to say!
Like the NY Times, Wash Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN etc??
Hank Johnson is a lawyer, he passed a bar exam in some state. How did he manage that? He’s arguably the dumbest person in congress.
If this guy has his way, this republic is dead as a doornail, as he'd be amending the First Amendment, where "people" plural - as in a corporation, has freedom of speech: "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Take that one down, and the only recourse before losing it, is using the second...
If you watch the video at the link, you will find you are right. He desperately attempts to form a coherent sentence while he is ranting about free speech.
Uh, no go on this amendment unless unions and the myriad of NGO’s are also prohibited from their “free speech” too . And we know that ain’t gonna happen.
Share the lead.
“Nutjobs like Johnson...”
He ain’t no nutjob. He’s just representative of the people who elected him.
(Get used to it because it’s going to get worse.)
IMHO
The first thing I looked for was a source of Semi-news / Semi-satire...
Meanwhile, Lord Obama appears to be the net beneficiary of the Citizens United decision.
I don't know ... there are a LOT of imbeciles in Congress ... and even more imbeciles who vote for them
This is the same idiot who thought that Guam would capsize if we put too many people on it.
Eliminate Hank Johnson to save freedom of speech.
So what you are saying is that the nutjobs who voted for this nutjob want to limit free speech as well? Then yes we are headed for some major trouble and conflict that won’t end well.
Dumbest - Hank Johnson thinking Guam would tip over? bwaaa too funny if it wasn’t so serious. I don’t know how that military guy kept a straight face.
What about the Gwen Moore from my state of Wisconsin, Sheila Jackson Lee who said Rover landed on Mars. NONE of those people are worthy of representing this great nation.
Rep Hank Johnson “I don’t want folks to know that I ordered up Debbie Does Dallas.”
http://regator.com/p/254160010/quoted_rep_hank_johnson_doesnt_want_you_to/
He wants to restrict freedom to make us more free.
It is difficult to imagine such massive ignorance is anywhere near a position of power ....
“...He ain’t no nutjob. He’s just representative of the people who elected him.”
Absolutely. I’ve posted multiple occasions about the void in the gray matter in the craniums of the Liberals, and this is a perfect example. These people don’t understand self rule. They only understand being ruled by rulers such as a Monarchy, Matriarchy, Dictator, Strongman, or Mom.
Johnson IS as you say representative of his constituency. They voted for the idiot, because they are idiots that don’t get it regarding Freedom, Liberty, individualism any better than apparently he does. They want to be ruled.
What if Guam tips over and capsizes? Wake up, Hank!
I propose a new amendment. No one who voted for this idiot can ever vote again anywhere in the US.
...so this guy and his friends just won in a landslide and now he’s complaining that evil corporations are spending money to prevent him and his friends from getting elected?
And his solution is to limit free speech.
...it will probably pass...
Hank, good luck of getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 38 states to “restrict” free speech.. Our founders where wise men..
Another rat who wants to change the rules because he doesn’t like them....
This is very scary stuff. Yes, this guy is ignorant and has said some ridiculous things, but the fact that words like this can be spoken by someone who officially sits on the US Congress, the fact that ideas like this could be voiced by a representative of our government, without an immediate universal backlash and repudiation by his colleagues, the MSM, and pretty much every other American is astounding and very, very concerning. For too long we have tolerated ideas and criticisms that were/are outrageous. Each and every time something is said or done that should be loudly repudiated, and we don’t repudiate it, we are allowing another crack in our foundation to develop and/or spread. It’s far past time to start pushing back.
The push back has to be just as far reaching as the ideas they are pushing, and should be targeted at their sacred cows.
At least we know how Georga’s 4th congressional district AKA Atalanta feels about Free speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_4th_congressional_district
If they don’t want it that is fine with me. I think Georgia should get started curtailing their political speech. It is after all destructive to the political process in Georgia as well as the rights and Liberty’s of other Georgians(given the way the 4th congressional district votes this fact could hardly be more self-evident)
They don’t care about their own free speech rights so why should we?
I believe he is right jst going about it wrong! the bill of rights was written for individual people not corporations or committees or unions but only for individual breathing U.S. citizen human being. If they can legally vote in an election, then they have freedom of speech. A corporation is incapable of speaking. It must have somone speak for it.
The problem started when a federal court expanded freem of speech to corporations and we have been in very serious trouble ever since. The federal courts has to reverse some prior opinion. A constitutional amendment is not the was to go.
corporations are a creation of the State therefore the State has the authority to restrict their activities.
And contrary to what Romney says corporations are not people. They do not have constitutional rights.
Want to band together in a group to help get your political message out? Do it off the clock and without the money I’ve invested in your coroporation.
“Another rat who wants to change the rules because he doesn’t like them....”
Still an improvement on most rats who would rater ignore the rules than change them by means of the correct process.
You mean corporations like CNN? MSNBC? Public Broadcasting? The New York Times Corporation? Hey, I might be in favor of shutting those up and, I agree, they have way too much power over the minds of the citizenry.
Now, the corporations he’s probably thinking about don’t have nearly that much power.
Scratch a liberal, uncover a fascist, dictator, commie, tyrant.
The issue is really with the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law, not the 1st.
Look at the megacorporations that own the various MSM outlets and have pretty much unfettered access to control the political debate. Or unions that have the ability to influence if not control the political debate as well.
Why should other corporations be at a disadvantage relative to the disproportionate influence of the MSM, unions and large activist groups? Citizens United should really be seen in that light and as a ruling that helps level the playing field somewhat.
“Look at the megacorporations that own the various MSM outlets and have pretty much unfettered access to control the political debate. Or unions that have the ability to influence if not control the political debate as well.”
Tanknetter, The last thing you should be worried about is corporations or unions controlling the debate when the only logical alliterative is by law to have government politicians control the debate.
Nobody is more motivated and politically power-hungry Federal Politician. NOBODY! Nobody will more eagerly or effectively control the debate than said politician, for nobody can have more incentive, (and if you give them law to enforce) power to do so.
Corporations compete with each-other, unions are parasitical monoplys depended upon government to let them leach & blackmail said corporations. Nether of which alone are powerful enough to control a debate. You give Government law, and serving politicians will dominate the debate!
There will be no truely free, much less competitively loud voices under them.
“Look at the megacorporations that own the various MSM outlets and have pretty much unfettered access to control the political debate. Or unions that have the ability to influence if not control the political debate as well.”
Tanknetter, The last thing you should be worried about is corporations or unions controlling the debate when the only logical alliterative is by law to have government politicians control the debate.
Nobody is more motivated and politically power-hungry Federal Politician. NOBODY! Nobody will more eagerly or effectively control the debate than said politician, for nobody can have more incentive, (and if you give them law to enforce) power to do so.
Corporations compete with each-other, unions are parasitical monoplys depended upon government to let them leach & blackmail said corporations. Nether of which alone are powerful enough to control a debate. You give Government law, and serving politicians will dominate the debate!
There will be no truely free, much less competitively loud voices under them.
How can a criminal that has use his office to violate most of the Constitution think that he could change that Constitution and it would have any bearing on the populace. As far as I am concerned, the illegal President and the Congress that supports him have clearly violated their oath of office and have no longer any force of law behind them.
They may have force, but not law. They are temporary residents till they are given their eviction notices. But their word is not binding any more than all the “Presidential Decrees” signed by that immigrant in thief.
We should remember...
He is sitting in the official Cynthia McKinney Chair of Congressional Moonbattery...
Such rantings from the LEFT field bleachers should be expected....
/SARC.....
Just sayin'
*************
**Insert Standard APOLOGY Paragraphs from all the right-minded tax-paying folks in Georgia who intend to run against Saxby Chambliss in 2014....
And he’s my Congressman. I had Cynthia McKinney before him.
Actually, even though his solution is wrong, there is an underlying problem.
When Lincoln was president, states decided to loot national companies, especially the railroads. So the chief justice let it be known that the SCOTUS would not support “civil rights” for corporations. And one of Lincoln’s henchmen fleshed out the idea.
And it has become central to corporate law ever since. However, it has become obvious that human person civil rights and corporate civil rights are not identical, but they are so interwoven in the law that a constitutional amendment is indeed needed to distinguish the two.
Corporations still need some forms of civil rights, but they should not have all the rights given to human persons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.