Ted Cruz Lies and Claims Senate Democrats Will Abolish The 1st Amendment

Cruz teabag liar
Speech is the vocalized form of human language and is based upon the syntactic combination of lexical and names that are drawn from about 10,000 different words. Money is any object or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context. Fear mongering is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end, and the feared subject is nearly always exaggerated. The pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition to continuously reinforce the intended effects of spreading fear. Unless one is a Republican, Koch brother, or member of the conservative Supreme Court, speech is not money and money is not speech, but using fear mongering is favored by Republicans, the Koch brothers, and religious right sycophants like Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz was introducing his evangelical lunatic father at the Christian preacher gathering, Watchmen on the Wall, sponsored by the extremist Family Research Council and combined the Koch-Republican-Supreme Court definition of money as speech with a very healthy dose of Republican fear mongering to influence evangelical fanatics into believing Senate Democrats were abolishing the 1st Amendment. Now, the first indication that Cruz’s imbecile audience was about as intelligent as a fence post was the fact none of them jumped out of their seat and screamed that Congress cannot possibly abolish a Constitutional Amendment, but that never happened because a god-man like Ted could not possibly lie. However, he did lie and it was a serious piece of fallacy that would make pathological liars Willard Romney and Paul Ryan gasp out loud.

Actually, members of Cruz’s audience did audibly gasp when he sounded the ominous warning, “When you think it can’t get any worse, it does. This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment. I am telling you, I am not making this up.” In all truth, the lying evangelical teabagger was “making this up” and he did not stop there. He also told attendees that “Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done.” To instill even more shock and awe in the gathered Christian clergy, Cruz hit them where it would  inflict real pain and have the greatest impact when he said, “they don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth.”

What Cruz did not tell the preachers was that Senate Democrats are going to schedule a vote sometime this year on Senate Joint Resolution 19 which, if it garners two-thirds majority support in both the Senate and the House, will be sent to the states for ratification as a Constitutional amendment undoing the wildly unpopular Koch-Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United and McCutcheon cases when the conservative Court redefined campaign financing (money) into 1st Amendment corporate free speech. Cruz never explained to the flabbergasted preachers the resolution required two-thirds support in Congress and the states before becoming a Constitutional amendment, or that it will never happen in most Americans’ lifetime, but his dirty lie had the desired effect.

There are several reasons why the evangelical clergy would fall for such a blatant lie; their stupidity and lack of knowledge of the Constitution or the process for repealing a constitutional amendment notwithstanding. First, it was evangelical freak Raphael Cruz’s son, the one elder Cruz said was anointed by god to greatness leading America into a Christian theocracy who was doing the lying. Second, the religious right preaches and hears Republicans and evangelical leaders complain loudly and often that Democrats led by President Obama were on a crusade to muzzle Christians and their preacher-men prior to rounding the entire herd up and throwing them to into concentration camps. Cruz’s warning that Democrats were voting to restrict Christian clergy’s freedom of speech made sense as a first step to wiping Christianity from the face of America.

Ever the consumate liar, Cruz still was not finished scaring the holy ghost out of the gathered clergy and finished by saying, “I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said, as one of his operatives interrupted him shouting “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.” It was a perfect setup for Cruz’s line that, “the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech. It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty, what is says it that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient.”

Only a Ted Cruz, the male Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, could make up a pile of bovine excrement like Senate Democrats were voting to abolish the First Amendment, religious liberty, muzzle Christian preachers, and allow the only press in America, the New York Times, to escape unfazed. It is also true that only a room full of evangelical preachers would sit dumbfounded and believe that 41 senators had the power and authority to vote away the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights; likely because it is what they want to believe. Cruz however, knows better and not once did he intimate that overturning Citizens United and McCutcheon, two Supreme Court rulings only a constitutional amendment can overturn was the subject of Senate Joint Resolution 19; and why would he? He had a captive and rapt audience clamoring for news their religious liberties and freedom to preach hate were under assault, and that it was Senate Democrats who were leading the charge.

There is no end to the filthy lies Republicans, and evangelical leaders, are willing to propagate to instill opposition, suspicion, and greater hatred toward anyone not affiliated with the Christian right. Cruz’s real goal was feeding the preachers a fresh batch of lies they could carry to their bible-thumping congregations ahead of the November midterm elections and use Hellfire and damnation to get the vote out for Republicans. The good news is that the preachers and their congregations were never going to vote for any candidate that does not promise a government by Christian theocracy and bible as Constitution under any circumstances, so at best evangelical Ted just gave the preachers momentary heart palpitations. Although he stood before a room full of preachers and lied through his evangelical teeth, he likely did not tell the evangelicals anything they have not already told their congregants or imagined because not only do they believe in archaic mythology, they believe everyone is out to get them because they are as psychotically bent human beings as Ted Cruz is a pathological liar.

 

 

 

 

33 Replies to “Ted Cruz Lies and Claims Senate Democrats Will Abolish The 1st Amendment”

  1. Even in the highly unlikely event that this bill passes successfully through Congress, it still has to be ratified by 2/3 of the States – not gonna happen in the current atmosphere of conservative hatred, bigotry, racism, hypocrisy, sexism, and religious ignorance. Replace these types of people in Congress and the State Legislations and then we’ll see – until then, a feel-good measure at best.

  2. Cruz would be wise to remember Schopenhauer: “Remember, when a book and a head collide, it is not always the book that makes the hollow sound.”

  3. Again this is only projection from the Christian Reich Wing. It is THEY who wish to repeal or change it to give only Christian Reich Wingers the freedoms that we all have. If the left were going to repeal an Amendment then it would be the useless harmful and profitable 2nd. Amendment. Ted and his father are only morons with high hopes.

  4. I am starting to believe Fidel sent these two idiots here for revenge and right now he is laughing his ass off

  5. This guy is the text book definition of a narcissistic, sociopathic, pathological, psychopath. That anyone would follow this guy is beyond comprehension. Don’t be surprised if he tells them all to drink the kool aid one of these days.

  6. I have always said this creepy Auslander gives me the willies like no one else in the American dextrosphere. Meanwhile, what he is doing is a perfect example of DARVO.

  7. So which section of the 1st Amendment specifically addresses the Founding Fathers’ belief that political elections, legislators’ causes, and public policy should be determined by individuals and groups with the deepest pockets?

  8. I suppose it’s possible to have the IQ of a tomato and still be elected to TeaXass….but it’s hard to imagine!

  9. You can spend all the money you want on advertising. The law never said you were limited in how much you can spend, generally. It only said that when you spend a certain amount, you aren’t allowed to say certain things. You spend a billion dollars saying “Buy Pepsi”, and nobody faults you. But if you said in that advertisement “and vote for Obama!”, you’d violated the law. So the Supreme Court rightly said the speech itself was being regulated, and now, like Cruz said, there’s a proposal to give Congress the power to regulate that speech and thus repeal free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Yes it’s a bit of hyperbole to say “repeal the First Amendment” rather than “repeal rights guaranteed by…” but a lie?

  10. Believe me in Canada the universal attitude towards the two Cruz nut apples from the orchard of insanity is: good riddance.

    No. We are not taking them back. Even in Alberta the attitude was “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.”

  11. kws1949, You need to apologize to Tomato’s. May I remind you of the epic cinematic masterpiece “Attack of the Killer Tomato’s” Repent or get sauced!

  12. Until this aberrational Court, U.S. jurisprudence always recognized the difference between political speech, necessary to the public commonweal, and commercial speech, intended solely for the profit of the utterer. The latter, though directly a function of the money spent on it, could be regulated more strictly under the Commerce Clause for such factors as libelling rival products, false advertising, and concealing hazards. The former, necessary to the functioning of a representative democracy, could only be content-regulated for defamation of a grade meeting the Times v. Sullivan test or the incitement of riot or sedition, but time/place/manner regulations imposed to assure a fair hearing. By stating that money is speech, this Court has stood these standards on their heads.

  13. There is something about him that reminds me of the late Jim Jones and that is not good. He is just doing his on a different level, he knows if he can get a good following he will be able to win the nomination but I don’t he really want to be president he have something else up his sleeve. He is fronting for someone else who I don’t know but it is not him. He had a reason for not changing his birth certificate because he is suppose to be smarter than president he would have done it years ago, right. Nope, it is someone else but right now the republicans don’t have no one who can really run and be president, but they can get republicans in office to screw up a lot of stuff for others to have to undo. I think they really are trying to find enough people to encourage a civil war to get the president out the white house since everything else they have done have found. They are betting on that he would he leave in order to prevent a civil war again guess who will be left hold the …

  14. The Court did not say that money is speech. They said that when someone spends money to express himself (ie to speak), the government cannot limit his ability to express himself by restricting how much he spends doing so, reducing “the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached”.

    Taken to its conclusion, your stance has grave consequences: by your logic, it would be constitutional for government to prohibit the spending of ANY money expressing some opinion or another. They could prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, or Rules for Radicals by simply making it illegal to spend money in the furtherance of such publications. They could limit the ability of the New York Times to reach readers by limiting how much money can be spent publishing a paper.

    Any difference between commercial speech and political speech results in EXTRA protection for the latter, not …

  15. Huh? This is what happens when you give unlimited funds I mean speech to a candidate
    New Chris Christie Scandal: NJ Gov Gave Pension Fund Billions to Wall Streeters Who Bankrolled His Campaigns
    http://www.alternet.org/investigations/new-chris-christie-scandal-nj-gov-gave-pension-fund-billions-wall-streeters-who

    And we wont even go into that cesspool that Walker has done to Wisconsin doing the bidding of the Kochs. Its called pay to play and only the most gullible, like Ray Charles would say “I CANT SEE SHIT”

  16. djchefron, the Court did NOT say that limit on campaign contributions are unconstitutional; indeed, they said that such limits are perfectly fine. And, by the way, both Christie and Walker were elected under rules that limit campaign contributions. The largest donation to Christie according to the source for the article you linked was $3,800. The largest donation given to the RNC was $32,400 – donations associated with Christie only by the fact that they were given to the RNC in New Jersey.

  17. You realize you validated what he was saying in one paragraph than it was straight hatemongering the rest right?
    He’s speaking out against limiting that “corporate free speech” that is now protected by the 1st amendment.
    What he’s speaking out against a law limiting a corporates right to that “corporate free speech” that is now considered a part of the 1st amendment.
    So, to summarize, he’s speaking out against a law limiting and/or abolishing what is now considered a part of the 1st amendment.
    So actually he didn’t lie just could and should have been more descript. Deceptive? Very. Lie? Not technically.
    Now I’m not saying I support him, as honestly no corporation should have such power, from the “Koch” to the”surprisingly” liberal insurance companies, but I am saying that in one swoop you validated his claims than hatemongered your way against him without more than a glimpse at what he was saying in such a partisan way as fox news talks about Obama.

  18. No corporation should have the power to speak? That’s an odd thing to say. Corporate free speech has always been a part of the First Amendment. It’s right there in black and white: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. That means free speech for corporations, for unions, for individuals; even for, should they ever gain the ability to perform the act, apes and dolphins.

    This weird interpretation that the left has of the Constitution (that only when individuals act alone do they have free speech, but that when they act together as a group, particularly when doing so for business or politics, the government can abridge their freedom of speech) is without a shred of basis in the Constitution. For all the talk of “Corporations are not people”, you’d think the First Amendment said it protects the right only for individual humans; but no, it simply prohibits Congress from abridging it, for anyone or, frankly, even any THING.

  19. The First Amendment has already been attacked by the Supreme Court. In the Greece NY decision, it gave legislative bodies the right to have sectarian Christian prayers at the start of their meetings.

    It also barred disparaging remarks about religion. Not only did the decision weaken the principle of separation of church and state, it also put limits on what kind of religious speech can be said. That’s an attack on freedom of speech.

    Hence, Thomas Jefferson’s comparing the virgin birth to Minerva in the brain of Jupiter would be forbidden.

    Jesus’s disparaging remark about public prayer likewise. In the Good Samaritan Parable, Jesus disparages the priest and levite for not helping the injured traveler.

  20. Liar,liar Republican on fire! If only we could. Cruz is the bottom of the barrell politician. Only in Texas would they vote a super moron of a super moron father who preaches Dominianism. Another fake preacher living off of others. People are really stupid. They all want to be guaranteed they will reach Heaven and they want some idiot to tell them that all their twisted beliefs are ok. Stupid people. It’s as if they are in a play and try to act and dress and speak in a certain way but then it really isn’t how they feel so they must get some person who preaches to them how they really feel and act and they support them in lavish lifestyles.
    What a dumb group of individuals.

  21. It’s amazing how the left vilifies the Koch brother’s while they don’t have a problem with money from Soros, trial lawyers Wall Street, and a laundry list of others!

  22. Soros , trial lawyers and a laundry list of others are not trying to destroy the Earth out of pure greed
    Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste but yours is so polluted with lies there is no way back for you

  23. Great cliches. Except that the koch heavily outdoes Soros, Wall street gave most money to Romney this time around

    Lets see the laundry

  24. Understatement of the year Marc. I can’t remember a previous president that lied as much as this one has-blatantly but somehow the Liberal looks the other way when you point that out. I guess they like being lied to?? I am no Bush, Clinton fan either. In fact I don’t like any of them. They’re all liars, cheats, lawbreakers and they are not working with our best interests in mind. Why the average Democrat or Republican voters is incapable of seeing the truth eludes me. I sit here watching voters continue to argue, fight, finger point at each other while the scum in Washington is destroying the country. It’s going to hit home soon. The Democrats will figure it out when the chit hits the fan and their heros in Washington do nothing to help them-they will continue to blame Bush, Christians, Conservatives I suppose-it’s what they do best-blame. Some Conservatives already figured it out and the rest will get up to speed in the very near future.

  25. Actually, members of Cruz’s audience did audibly gasp when he sounded the ominous warning, “When you think it can’t get any worse, it does. This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment. I am telling you, I am not making this up.”

    Seeing that you support the idiot I know that you don’t know what the highlighted word that is in red actually does. Move your mouse and click on it and eureka it goes to the site where the wacka bird said it in a video. You don’t have to thank me. It was a PSA, JUST FOR YOU

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.