Democrats love rich people, when they are Democrats. They take their money and give them taxpayer subsidized loans to prop up their failed business ventures. They love working people, when they are in unions…baling out UAW workers at Car companies when you know that were it non-union Toyota or Honda–plants in America with American workers, they’d have been on their own. And they love free speech as long as it speaks to their political advantage. If you use your money or your speech to say things that run contrary to their agenda you are evil, selfish, a bigot, want people to die, a racist, buying up (local) elections, pushing grandma off a cliff, a monkey in the window, an Uncle Tom, a slut, whore, bitch, bag of meat, or worse.
(Have you noticed that Republican’s don’t do this? I’ve noticed.)
This Democrat hatred of the wrong kind of wealth or opinion was always present but burst from the seams when the Supreme Court overturned the unconstitutional McCain Feingold speech limitations, removing the gag placed there by Democrats and moderates who were gaming the system to their advantage. This uncorking was followed almost immediately in New Hampshire by an amendment to HB1459 that would not only keep unfriendly money out of politics but empower third parties to do the intimidating for the Democrats so they wouldn’t even have to get their hands dirty . With tax-paying business owners effectively silenced only the big money establishment players, the unions, and the left wing media (all exempt businesses engaging in paid political speech), would have the resources to deliver and maintain any consistent political messaging–and all of it predominantly center left, grow government first, speech.
Well there has been a new development in Chicago to silence speech that New Hampshire Democrats will love.
After refusing to consider them based on their past political speech or investments in it, a Chicago City Alderman has announced that the city of Chicago might be willing to “let” this private business operate in their city if….it promises to not engage in political speech. If it can’t speak to the Democrats advantage, they’ll have to shut up altogether.
There is very little difference between this, a bribe, or the goals of Maggie Hassan and New Hampshire Democrats anti-speech efforts in the Granite State. It is government using its police powers to control the message. In the case of Hassan-Speech the exchange was silence for not getting sued.
The (New Hampshire) democrats…wanted to empower third parties to intimidate political speech for them as well. Anyone with the money and time could file a lawsuit against any business that it thought could have violated the (new) law. This would give every out of state funded left wing non-profit the ability to pay its left wing, democrat supporting lawyers, to cast a chilling anti-speech pall across the New Hampshire Landscape. Fear of litigation would instantaneously exclude thousands of voices from the political debate simply because they could not risk the time and expense of being sued, even erroneously, should they fail to dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s.
Empowering the bureaucracy to act based on ideology is a very clean short cut to tyranny–one that will probably not survive scrutiny, even in Chicago, but one that sprung so fresh and inspiring from the mind of entrenched Chicago Democrat Joe Moreno that he shared it as an Op/Ed in the Chicago Tribune. (Free Registration Required).
You want something from me, then you cant speak against things I support.
No TEA party person, Republican, Libertarian, or Conservative would ever even consider this…becasue it is unconstitutional. Yet here we have another Democrat, trying to silence speech he does not approve of, by whatever means possible.
Are you independents getting the message?
When are people going to learn? The two most important rights you have are the right to self defense (to bear arms) and the right of free speech (and association) and Democrats take every opportunity they can to deny you the right to either in any measure they can.
So given their commitment to expanding government at your expense, along with their obsession with ensuring you are incapable of opposing them, what are the odds that a consistent majority of Granite Stater’s (locally) and American’s (nationally) will not only grasp the risk these people represent to their freedom, but will use the ballot box (again) to keep them out of power until they learn that we do not want them denying us these constitutional rights?
H/T Hot Air
