Nope the democrats don't want total power...

not at freaking all.....

Chuck syphilis for brains Schumer thinks he's qualified to rewrite the 1st amendment of the constitution?  He's not qualified to run a whorehouse. Hell that man isn't qualified to run his own life, let alone hold position in office.

According to the text of the proposed revision to James Madison's 1791 handiwork, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, the states and federal government would have the power to regulate the "raising and spending of money" through a wide range of means "to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all."

Huh wait, WHAT?  So he wants to rewrite the Constitution so in the name of  "political equality for all"...we the people are supposed to trust this band of felonious mental incompetents currently in power...to decide whats fair and what isn't?


“The First Amendment is sacred, but… the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you actually make it less sacred to most Americans. We have to bring some balance to our political system,”  said the vainglorious, egotistical ass known as Chuck Schumer

here's the full text of the proposed amendment..

``Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political 
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and 
electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising 
and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal 
elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support 
        of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    ``Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political 
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and 
electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the 
raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to 
State elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support 
        of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    ``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant 
Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
    ``Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement 
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''.

Only one problem. As the article I link below points out...such an amendment would favor current sitting politicians almost exclusively. Making it difficult or next to/actually  impossible to, for anyone from the civilian sector to go up against sitting politicians. Be they dems or repubs.


I'll freely commend anyone and agree with anyone who says that this amendment has about a snowballs chance in hell...or a penniless man's chance in a whorehouse, of passing. However the fact Schumer and his buddies including Tom Udall among others,  has the unmitigated gall to even suggest such a thing should make you wonder...is anyone currently sitting in office, especially dems but repubs too...anyone you want making decisions for you, over your life?  Because that is exactly where such an amendment leads. To an entrenched elite, that you can only get rid of through bloodshed.
 The same kind of fight our founding fathers fought to FREE us from the same kind of entrenched elite.  The same kind of fight they gave us, their descendants, The US Constitution to keep us from having to fight for as long as possible.  So...from their perspective...do you think we're failing miserably?  From your own personal perspective...give it some deep thought, same question.  

My own answer?  I'd have thought that would be obvious.

Remember, TANSTAAFL and..........

I now return you to your regularly scheduled inanity and insanity.



























http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754904577530722229309932?mod=Opinion_newsreel_1