Tag Archives: Free speech

Liberty Activists, Constitutionalists To Be Treated Same As ISIS Terrorists

rightwingextremists

Kiss the Founding Fathers, your freedom of speech, religion and due process goodbye.  There are growing calls for the removal, restriction and banning of ideas, speech and history the State considers ‘dangerous’.

No point to adding any comment to the following news stories, which are the fruits of Fundamental Transformation, except to say that the massive support for the self-admitted Fabian Socialist/Communist Bernie Sanders makes sense when you come to grips with the fact we have lost the country.

The Founding Fathers Considered Domestic Extremists Today

 

Liberty activists and ISIS will be treated as identical threats

What First Amendment?  The State will tell you what is permitted speech from now on.

Government Arrests Radio Talk Show Host over his comments against FBI abuse at Oregon Wildlife Refuge

Not only has free speech become a four-letter word—profane, obscene, uncouth, not to be uttered in so-called public places—but in more and more cases, the government deems free speech to be downright dangerous and in some instances illegal.

The U.S. government has become particularly intolerant of speech that challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, extremist speech, etc.

Yet by allowing the government to whittle away at cherished First Amendment freedoms—which form the backbone of the Bill of Rights—we have evolved into a society that would not only be abhorrent to the founders of this country but would be hostile to the words they used to birth this nation.

Don’t believe me?

Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God as a Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself. One such test is playing out before our very eyes in Portland, Oregon, where radio “shock jock” Pete Santilli, a new media journalist who broadcasts his news reports over YouTube and streaming internet radio, is sitting in jail.

Santilli, notorious for his controversial topics, vocal outrage over government abuses, and inflammatory rhetoric, is not what anyone would consider an objective reporter. His radio show, aptly titled “Telling You the Truth…Whether You Like It or Not,” makes it clear that Santilli has a viewpoint (namely, that the government has overstepped its bounds), and he has no qualms about sharing it with his listeners.

It was that viewpoint that landed Santilli in jail.

In early January 2016, a group of armed activists, reportedly protesting the federal government’s management of federal lands and its prosecution of two local ranchers convicted of arson, staged an act of civil disobedience by occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Santilli, who has covered such protests in the past, including the April 2014 standoff in Nevada between the Bundy ranching family and the federal government over grazing rights, reported on the occupation in Burns as an embedded journalist, albeit one who was sympathetic to the complaints (although not the tactics) of the occupiers.

When asked to clarify his role in relation to the occupation, Santilli declared, “My role is the same here that it was at the Bundy ranch. To talk about the constitutional implications of what is going on here. The Constitution cannot be negotiated.”

Well, it turns out that the Constitution can be negotiated, at least when the government gets involved.

Long a thorn in the side of the FBI, Santilli was arrested by the FBI following its ambush and arrest of key leaders of the movement. He was charged, along with the armed resistors, with conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their duties by use of force, intimidation, or threats—the same charge being levied against those who occupied the refuge—which carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

Notably, Santilli is the only journalist among those covering the occupation to be charged with conspiracy, despite the fact that he did not participate in the takeover of the refuge, nor did he ever spend a night on the grounds of the refuge, nor did he ever represent himself as anything but a journalist covering the occupation.

Of course, the government doesn’t actually believe that 50-year-old Santilli is an accomplice to any criminal activity.

Read between the lines and you’ll find that what the government is really accusing Santilli of is employing dangerous speech. As court documents indicate, the government is prosecuting Santilli solely as a reporter of information. In other words, they’re making an example of him, which is consistent with the government’s ongoing efforts to intimidate members of the media who portray the government in a less than favorable light.

 

…That the government is choosing to target Santilli for prosecution, despite the fact that they do not recognize new media journalists as members of the mainstream media, signals a broadening of the government’s efforts to suppress what it considers dangerous speech and stamp out negative coverage.The message is clear: whether a journalist is acting alone or is affiliated with an established news source, the government has no qualms about subjecting them to harassment, arrest, jail time and trumped up charges if doing so will discourage others from openly opposing or exposing the government.

You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

Where the government has gone wrong is in hinging its case against Santilli based solely on his incendiary rhetoric, which is protected by the First Amendment and which bears a striking resemblance to disgruntled patriots throughout American history.

Here’s what Santilli said: “What we need, most importantly, is one hundred thousand unarmed men and women to stand together. It is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal.”

Now compare that with the call to action from Joseph Warren, a leader of the Sons of Liberty and a principal figure within the American Revolution: “Stain not the glory of your worthy ancestors, but like them resolve never to part with your birthright; be wise in your deliberations, and determined in your exertions for the preservation of your liberties. Follow not the dictates of passion, but enlist yourselves under the sacred banner of reason; use every method in your power to secure your rights.”

Indeed, Santilli comes across as relatively docile compared to some of our nation’s more outspoken firebrands.

Santilli: “I’m not armed. I am armed with my mouth. I’m armed with my live stream. I’m armed with a coalition of like-minded individuals who sit at home and on YouTube watch this.”

Now compare that to what George Washington had to say: “Unhappy it is, though, to reflect that a brother’s sword has been sheathed in a brother’s breast and that the once-happy plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?”

And then there was Andrew Jackson, a hothead if ever there was one. He came of age in the early days of the republic, served as the seventh president of the United States, and was not opposed to shedding blood when necessary: “Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms.”

This is how freedom rises or falls.

There have always been those willing to speak their minds despite the consequences. Where freedom hangs in the balance is when “we the people” are called on to stand with or against individuals who actually exercise their rights and, in the process, push the envelope far enough to get called out on the carpet for it.

Do we negotiate the Constitution, or do we embrace it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, no matter how hateful or ugly it gets, and no matter how much we may dislike its flag-bearers?

Comedian Lenny Bruce laid the groundwork for the George Carlins that would follow in his wake: foul-mouthed, insightful, irreverent, incredibly funny, and one of the First Amendment’s greatest champions who dared to “speak the unspeakable” about race, religion, sexuality and politics. As Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff attests, Bruce was “not only a paladin of free speech but also a still-penetrating, woundingly hilarious speaker of truth to the powerful and the complacent.”

Bruce died in 1966, but not before being convicted of alleged obscenity for challenging his audience’s covert prejudices by brandishing unmentionable words that, if uttered today, would not only get you ostracized but could get you arrested and charged with a hate crime. Hentoff, who testified in Bruce’s defense at his trial, recounts that Lenny used to say, “What I wanted people to dig is the lie. Certain words were suppressed to keep the lie going. But if you do them, you should be able to say the words.”

Not much has changed in the 50 years since Bruce died. In fact, it’s gotten worse.

What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we are witnessing is a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown over this growing tension between our increasingly untenable reality and the lies being perpetrated by a government that has grown too power-hungry, egotistical, militaristic and disconnected from its revolutionary birthright.

The only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.

Otherwise, there will be no more First Amendment. There will be no more Bill of Rights. And there will be no more freedom in America as we have known it.

Speaking against the government is now an act of terrorism according to the Federal Government.

founderragheads

Constitutional advocates, Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.-born philosophies present a “clear and present danger” to the country says Obama’s Justice Department.

Many of us saw it coming a long time ago — increasing confrontation between liberty proponents and the corrupt federal establishment leading to increasing calls by political elites and bureaucrats to apply to American citizens the terrorism countermeasures designed for foreign combatants. It was only a matter of time and timing.

My stance has always been that the elites would wait until there was ample social and political distraction; a fog of fear allowing them to move more aggressively against anti-globalists. We are not quite there yet, but the ground is clearly being prepared.

Economic uncertainty looms large over our fiscal structure today, more so even than in 2008. Global instability is rampant, with Europe at the forefront as mass migrations of “refugees” invade wholesale. At best, most of them intend to leach off of the EU’s already failing socialist welfare structure while refusing to integrate or respect western social principles. At worst, a percentage of these migrants are members of ISIS with the goals of infiltration, disruption and coordinated destruction.

With similar immigration and transplantation measures being applied to the U.S. on a smaller scale (for now) the ISIS plague will inevitably hit our shores in a manner that will undoubtedly strike panic in the masses. I believe 2016 will be dubbed the “year of the terrorist,” and ISIS will not be the only “terrorists” in the spotlight.

While scanning the pages of mainstream propaganda machines like Reuters, I came across this little gem of an article, which outlines plans by the U.S. Justice Department to apply existing enemy combatant laws used against ISIS terrorists and their supporters to “domestic extremists,” specifically mentioning the Bundy takeover of the federal refuge in Burns, Oregon as an example.

“Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.-born philosophies present a “clear and present danger,” John Carlin, the Justice Department’s chief of national security, told Reuters in an interview. “Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment.”

“Clear and present danger” is a vital phrase implemented in this statement from Carlin and he used it quite deliberately. It refers to something called the “clear and present danger doctrine or test,” a doctrine rarely used except during times of mass panic, such as during WWI and WWII. The doctrine applies specifically to the removal of 1st Amendment rights of free speech during moments of “distress.”

What does this mean, exactly? “Clear and present danger” is a legal mechanism by which the government claims the right not only to prosecute or destroy enemies of the state, but also anyone who publicly supports those same enemies through speech or writing.

Recently, the prospect of allowing the Federal Communications Commission to target and shut down websites related to ISIS has been fielded by congressional representatives. Many people have warned against this as setting a dangerous precedent by which the government could be given free license to censor and silence ANY websites they deem “harmful” to the public good, even those not tied to ISIS in any way.

Of course, overt hatred of Islamic extremism amongst conservatives is at Defcon 1 right now, and with good reason. Unfortunately, this may lead constitutional conservatives, the most stalwart proponents of free speech, to mistakenly set the stage for the erasure of free speech rights all in the name of stopping ISIS activity. The greatest proponents of constitutional liberties could very well become the greatest enemies of constitutional liberties if they fall for the ploy set up by the establishment.

The Reuters article outlines the future implications quite plainly:

The U.S. State Department designates international terrorist organizations to which it is illegal to provide “material support.” No domestic groups have that designation, helping to create a disparity in charges faced by international extremist suspects compared to domestic ones.

It has been applied in 58 of the government’s 79 Islamic State cases since 2014 against defendants who engaged in a wide range of activity, from traveling to Syria to fight alongside Islamic State to raising money for a friend who wished to do so.

Prosecutors can bring “material support” terrorism charges against defendants who aren’t linked to groups on the State Department’s list, but they have only done so twice against non-jihadist suspects since the law was enacted in 1994. The law, which prohibits supporting people who have been deemed to be terrorists by their actions, carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.”

The Justice Department goes on to explain that they are “exploring” options to make “material support” charges more applicable to “domestic extremists.”

So what constitutes “material support?” Well, as mentioned earlier, John Carlin just told us. His use of the phrase “clear and present danger” denotes that 1st Amendment speech will be restricted, ostensibly because some speech will be labeled “material support” of terrorist organizations. The liberty movement, likely in the near future, is about to be outwardly defined by the establishment as a terrorist movement, and those who support it through speech will be designated as material supporters of said terrorism.

To be utterly clear, this could apply to any and everyone who promotes anti-government sentiments online, and will likely be aimed more prominently at liberty analysts and journalists. The argument for this move is rather humorous in my view — bureaucrats and others complain that it is “not fair” that Islamic terrorists are being treated more harshly than “white rural domestic extremists” and that material support laws should be enforced against everyone equally.

Yes, that’s right, the 1st Amendment is under threat because the Justice Department does not want to appear “racist.” At least, that is their public excuse…

Will this all take place in a vacuum? Of course not. Something terrible is brewing. Another Oklahoma City-stye bombing, perhaps. Or a standoff gone horribly awry. The standoff in Oregon continues without Ammon Bundy and is about to get worse in the next week according to my information (you will see what I mean). The point is, the narrative is being finalized in preparation for whatever trigger events may be in store, and that narrative closely associates ISIS with liberty activists as being in the same category.

“As law enforcement experts confront domestic militia groups, “sovereign citizens” who do not recognize government authority, and other anti-government extremists, they also face a heightened threat from Islamic extremists like the couple who carried out the Dec. 2 shootings in San Bernardino, California.”

 This is why I have consistently argued against giving any extra-judicial powers to our already bloated federal system. I am a staunch opponent of Islamic immigration and terrorism, but some people are so desperate to fight one monster that they are willing to give unlimited powers to another monster thinking it will give their minds ease. These people are fools, and they are putting the rest of us at risk.

If you want to fight ISIS, then fight them yourself. Do not give the same government that helped create ISIS and then deliberately transplanted them to Europe and the U.S. even more legal authority over our lives to supposedly “stop” ISIS. This would be absurd.

In the meantime, I would point out that regardless of how the federal government wishes to label us, the liberty movement could not be more different from the Islamic State.

  1. We don’t enjoy covert funding and training from the government at large as ISIS does. (Though according to leftists, we all take our marching orders from the Koch Brothers).
  2. Most of us were born in this country and are rather attached to it.
  3. ISIS fights to dismantle traditional Western values. We fight to restore traditional Western values, and we will not only fight ISIS but also cultural Marxists and collectivists who share the same disdain for liberty.
  4. Many of us are far better trained than ISIS goons, so if anything, we are a more severe threat to the enemies of free society. (We actually look down our sights when we shoot rather than hiding behind cars with the rifle over our head and squatting like a constipated dog. We can also operate their AK-47s better than they can).
  5. We are as opposed to Sharia Law as we are to martial law. In fact, we see them as essentially the same unacceptable circumstance.
  6. We don’t cannibalize our enemies. (Who would want to take a bite out of Henry Kissinger’s spleen?)
  7. We might look down on the insane ramblings of today’s feminists, but at least we would not stone them, enforce female circumcision, then rape them, then throw acid in their faces, then slap a hijab on them and take away their driver’s licenses. So maybe, just maybe, we toxic masculine conservative barbarians aren’t as bad as they seem to think we are.
  8. We understand that black pajamas are not the best camouflage, but ISIS may have better fashion sense than we do.
  9. Our beards are all-American. Their beards are just plain creepy.
  10. They fight to be martyred. We fight to win.

When all is said and done, who is the greater threat to you and your freedoms? A psychotic theocrat that has taken his religion so far into the forbidden zone that any evil, no matter how heinous, is justified through the circular logic of zealotry? The criminal government that funded that psycho, trained him, slapped a rocket launcher in his hands and then gave him a free plane ride to your favorite shopping mall? Or, some weirdo that stores lots of food and gas masks in his basement and every once in a while talks to you about 9/11? Come on, think about it…

1 Comment

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Hypocrisy On Parade: Michelle Obama Praises Free Speech on China Trip That Banned Journalists

ObamaChina

There is no shame felt by those who think they are gods and gifts to mankind.

The White House banned journalists from accompanying Michelle Obama on her trip to China and explained that it was because the purpose of her trip is not political. Some news outlets even repeated the White House’s assertion of the non-political nature of the visit without mentioning that the press was not allowed to accompany them. So much for the “most transparent White House in history”.

In a speech rife with political overtones, she lectured the Chinese:

“And that’s why it’s so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media; because that’s how we discover the truth.”

“Truth” is of course whatever the Obama regime says is “the truth”.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.

So Michelle Obama lectures a communist police state about free speech standards, while Obama is busy spying on journalists and spurring the Democrats in the Senate to redefine who is allowed First Amendment Press and Speech Rights, while restricting access to information in the U.S.

 

First Wookie In China

Call the Hypocrisy Police: Michelle Obama Praises Free Speech on China Trip That Banned Journalists

The White House banned journalists from accompanying Michelle Obama on her trip to China and explained that it was because the purpose of her trip is not political. Some news outlets even repeated the White House’s assertion of the non-political nature of the visit without mentioning that the press was not allowed to accompany them.

But in a speech that sounded at times to be extremely political, she also said the following:

“And that’s why it’s so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media; because that’s how we discover the truth.”

So Michelle Obama lectures a communist police state about free speech standards, while the White House is spying on journalists and restricting access to information in the U.S.. Double-standard much?

Then, Michelle Obama goes on to give the U.S. media a not-so-subtle jab (maybe because she thought they were shut out of the event):

“My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens. And it’s not always easy, but we wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world.”

Based on the White House’s reputation for failing to be transparent and the President’s griping about the press, this ironic platitude was fluffier than the rice that came with her Peking Duck.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane to 2011, when President Obama expressed this sentiment, as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

Gotcha, Mrs. Obama. Not for anything in the world.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny, Politics

Obama To Surrender Remaining U.S. Control of Internet Over to ‘The Global Community’

TrojanObama

Russia Invades Ukraine, Obama goes on vacation.  China flexes muscle over Japan, Obama plays golf.  While the world preps for WWIII – Obama cuts military forces to pre WWII Levels.  Today he surrenders U.S. control over the internet.

All one can say is – Trojan Horse.  That is what Obama is.

Kiss the last frontier of free information and communication goodbye as the Obama hands it over to the screwed-up mess that is the ‘global community’.

U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet

The Obama regime announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move likely to please international critics but alarm many business leaders and others who rely on smooth functioning of the Web.

It’s WaPo – so link to headline and description ONLY.  But further info can be gleaned here:

Internet giveaway weakens cybersecurity, opens door to Web tax

The U.S. government’s plan to give away authority over the Internet’s core architecture to the “global Internet community” could endanger the security of both the Internet and the U.S. — and open the door to a global tax on Web use.

“U.S. management of the internet has been exemplary and there is no reason to give this away — especially in return for nothing,” former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told The Daily Caller. “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal — only with possibly much worse consequences.”

The U.S. Commerce Department announced late Friday it would relinquish control of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — the organization charged with managing domain names, assigning Internet protocol addresses and other crucial Web functions — after its current contract expires next year.

In response to months of mounting criticism from the global community over sweeping National Security Surveillance programs leaked by former agency contractor Edward Snowden, the administration surrendered to allegations it had too much influence over the Web through ICANN, which designates the roadmap from web-connected devices to websites and servers across the globe.

“While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” Whiton said. “If the U.N. gains control what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes.  It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”

ICANN’s Lebanese-born CEO Fadi Chehadé had already recently discussed setting up an office in Geneva — the location of the largest U.N. presence outside New York. If folded into the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union, the organization would have access to a significant revenue stream outside of member contributions for the first time.

“What little control there is over the U.N. would be gone,” Whiton said.

The greater danger posed by the giveaway lies with the security of the Internet itself. While the U.S. has never used ICANN in a war or crisis situation, the potential exists for it to obstruct Internet commerce or deter foreign cyber attacks – powerful tools in the globalized information age.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Sharia Implementation: Posting Anything “Mean” About Muslims, Is Now A Federal Criminal Act

ObamaShhhharia

The First Amendment is dead as U.S. Attorney says posting anything negative about Islam is a Federal violation of civil rights laws.

The hits from the Obama regime just keep on coming, and coming and coming.

Yesterday it was reported that Obama’s regime (with help from John McCain)  is committing treason by arming Al Qaeda-backed rebels in Syria who slaughtered an entire Christian village.

syria-christian-massacre

Members of the Free Syrian Army reportedly attacked the Christian-dominated al-Duvair village in Reef on the outskirts of Homs on Monday, where they massacred its citizens, including women and children…The U.S. and other Western governments that are backing the FSA have acknowledged the presence of jihadists but insist that they’re only a small part of the rebel movement. However, al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups have been at the front of the rebel movement since day one of the Syrian war that began two years ago. According to German intelligence, 95 percent of the rebels aren’t even Syrian.

The slaughter was committed as an effort by the Jihadists to implement Sharia Law in Dictator Assad’s formerly secularist Syria.

Why is this issue of concern for us in America?  Well, aside from Obama helping to create an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East, the Obama regime is implementing by default, Sharia right here as part of Federal Law.

U.S. Attorney for the Obama Federalies  asserts posting the truth about Jihadists and radical Islamists is now a violation of Federal law.  This is defacto implementation of Sharia Law under the guise of protecting ‘civil rights’ for Jihadists and radical Muslims.   Interestingly, that application of ‘civil rights laws’  does not extend to Christians.  Everyone, including Muslims are free to demonize, denounce and insult Christianity and Christians for their faith and no such criminal violation of  ‘civil rights laws’ will be applied or upheld.

Well, I for one will continue to post the TRUTH about Jihadists and radical Muslims until I am forced to stop.  And you can be sure, this regime is going to attempt to force us to shut up.

Why do you think they obtained all that data and collected all those e-mails, cell numbers and texts from the press corps?

You need to be asking yourself, ‘how long before speaking ill of homosexuals, or the Democrats or Obama will be made a Federal crime?’  My guess is soon now.  This regime has reached the point of power that it believes it can do whatever it wants to do without any consequences.   Obama and the MarxoFascist war on the First Amendment and the press has reached the bombardment phase.

Think Hitler versus the Munich Post in the 30’s.  Think Soviet, because that is where we have arrived.

From Breitbart today.

US Attorney Bill Killian: Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be a Criminal Action Under Federal Civil Rights Laws

The First Amendment served us well for a time, but now it’s outdated.

Remember reading that England had arrested a guy for anti-Muslim Twitter postings in the aftermath of the Woolrich slaughter? And remember thinking, “Well, this is America, that can’t happen here”?
Oh yes it can. Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee wants you to know that if you say something untoward about Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” … Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

The posting he offers as a “for instance” is an egregious one. And yet this country has long protected, absolutely, egregious speech, such as hardcore pornography, for a simple reason: Either you are at liberty to say what you will or you are not. If you are constantly double-thinking every word you might say, for fear of being prosecuted, you are self-censoring, in anticipation of a possible prosecution by the government.

Rather than having a system in which people were constantly worried about imprisonment for speech, our country has evolved a simple bright-line code: Speech of all kinds, with a few exceptions that can be counted on three fingers, is absolutely protected.

Remember, the importance of this bright-line, no-exceptions rule of free speech was preached to us, even when some of us might not have liked it so much, as when hardcore pornography was afforded absolute protection under the First Amendment. In the case of hardcore pornography, it was argued — successfully — that having each artist weigh the possibility of an obscenity prosecution was too much of a burden on his free speech rights, and would have, unavoidably, a chilling effect on speech.

That was the rule then, and that was the rationale.

But now comes the Obama Administration to tell you that Yes, you just might be imprisoned for something you say online, so you’d better Watch What You Say.

Remember when Ari Fleischer said that, without suggesting any kind of legal penalties? Remember how the media freaked out?

But now comes the US Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee explicitly telling you that you may be imprisoned if a political appointee decides your political speech has crossed a line.

Somehow, I don’t think Tim Robbins will be portentously howling us that a “chill wind” is blowing across our rights of free expression this week.

More from Flopping Aces, who dug up video of Obama “joking” about using the IRS to punish those who he does not like to make the point that much of what Obama ‘joked’ about or made mention of during 2008-2009 – is being IMPLEMENTED.

Obama: Islam Trumps First Amendment

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”. – Barackus Obamanus I

“This is to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are…Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction. That’s what everybody needs to understand,” – Bill Killian Federal U.S. Attorney on behalf of Obama DOJ

4 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny, War On Jihadists

McConnell: DISCLOSE ACT Will Silence Criticism of Obama By Intimidation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the nation is still reeling from the outrage over the ObamaCare ruling and Obama’s Policy Directive abolishing the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Friday raised the alarm bells on another bill that will be voted on in the Senate on Monday.

The DISCLOSE ACT (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act), Or The Mob Intimidation Act as Mark Levin called it, is scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Monday.  is not about disclosing – it’s about intimidation.  DISCLOSE ( another ridiculous misnomer by the Democrats) is an attempt to require ALL 501-C4s and 3’s to disclose political causes and contributions made.  Under the prism of ‘transparency’ in campaigns, the Act according to McConnell is not at all what is being painted by the Democrats.

Mr. McConnell stated on Mark Levin’s radio program on Friday evening that the bill is a “direct threat to the First Amendment” and will require disclosure of all 501-C4s for this Administration in order to intimidate those pesos and corporations that disagree with the Obama regime by using the IRS and the FCC.

McConnell said that Democrats and bill Sponsor Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  “Jury rigged this bill to exempt all unions from any of requirement imposed on non-unions”, one of the major political arms of Obama and the Democrats.  He went on to state that this bill not at all “serious” about transparency, rather it is a cynical attempt to silence any bad-mouthing of Obama or the Democrats.  McConnell did not mince words by stating that the bill is “designed to quiet the voices of Conservatives who complain about Obama….using this bill as an enemies’ list”.  McConnell suggested that persons and groups who are critical of this Administration face intimidation by the FCC or the IRS for blogging or supporting groups upon this bill’s passage.

Schumer is a sponsor of DISCLOSE, and admitted is a ‘deterrent effect’ to quiet the voices or scare away those who oppose Obama and his policies.  The Senate Minority Leader was more pointed by claiming that the bill is designed to ” Shut up their critics and intimidate people” while at the same time creating a massive ‘power grab’ of American’s free speech rights.

The NRA is also pushing hard to help defeat this.

McConnell closed by stating that “This Administration is a real threat to America as we have known it”.

US News & World Report also weighs in and also classifies this Act as a mechanism to intimidate any supporters for Romney:

Obama, Democrats Push DISCLOSE Act to Intimidate Romney Donors

Snip:

On Monday the U.S. Senate is going to again take up the DISCLOSE Act, an effort the Democrats and their allies want to pass in order to be able to intimidate donors to the GOP, to Romney, and to conservative causes.

….It’s not the new system they don’t like—even while they attack it. It’s that without knowing the identity of the donors who are giving the money to the GOP, they can’t send their mobs arising out of the “Occupy” movement and like-minded groups to the homes of donors in an effort to intimidate them into closing their checkbooks. Last week, for example, hoards of protesters descended on a neighborhood in New York to picket the home of a couple holding a Romney fundraiser, including a plane towing an obnoxious banner overhead.

Other donors to Romney have been singled out by name by the Obama campaign, triggering boycotts of the companies with whom they are affiliated. No such actions have been taken, on the other hand, against individuals or events organized to raise funds for pro-Obama groups. The hypocrisy of the left on these issues should be apparent to anyone who cares to look. They don’t want an even playing field. They don’t want fairness. They want to force, through new law or through intimidation, the GOP’s money out of the political process so they can do all the spending they want, unmatched by anyone who disagrees.

Leave a comment

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Sharia Law USA: Efforts To Criminalize Speech Critical of Islam Now Underway

Secretary of State Clinton and Organization of Islamic Cooperation are meeting to discuss implementation of mechanisms to limit speech critical of Islam… in America.

Thanks to LMonty for the heads up on this story.

If you think your head is spinning trying to keep pace with the rapid and deadly threats to our liberty by our this government tyranny over us (just last night they passed the bill to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial anywhere in the world), then this news is not going to ease your dizziness – only accelerate it.

While this regime in power says it is working to fight “terrorists” (without mentioning Islam or Jihadists) – at the same time, they are working to CRIMINALIZE any speech critical of Islam under the justification that  such criticism “incites hatred and violence against Muslims” which they equate  to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, and therefore have legal precedent to restrict.

The Islamists and their apologists seek to impose an aspect of Sharia Law here in the United States, where it is illegal to criticize Islam.  Of note, there is no effort whatsoever to extend similar protections to Christianity or Judaism.  It’s still open season on the biblical faiths in the West.

On top of that, obviously the First Amendment is now moot and abolished in the mind of this Obama regime, as prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian religion is their legal right, while establishing protections for Islam as a matter of law, is perfectly legitimate.

Read very carefully what Clare Lopez states here at the American Thinker about this ‘working initiative’ between the OIC, and Clinton.  Note at the link in particular, the statements of the OIC charter to impose global Sharia Law and what the Obama regime has ALREADY implemented in it’s ‘anti-terrorism’ efforts domestically.  It should chill you to your bones.

Islamic World Tells Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented — in America

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomes Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to Washington this week, it is critical that Americans pay attention to what these two leaders intend to do.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, working teams from the Department of State (DoS) and the OIC are going to discuss implementation mechanisms that could impose limits on freedom of speech and expression.

The OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4thAnnual Report on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.”  Incitement is to be defined by applying the “test of consequences” to speech.  Under this twisted perversion of falsely “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.

The OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam.  Neither Christianity nor Judaism is named in the OIC’s official documents, whose only concern is to make the world safe from “defamation” of Islam — a charge that includes speaking truthfully about the national security implications of the Islamic doctrine of jihad.

Incitement to hatred under the OIC definition includes artistic expression like the Danish cartoons, literary expression like Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, or Pastor Terry Jones’ burning of his personally owned copy of the Qur’an.  According to the “test of consequences,” if Muslims feel compelled to burn, loot, riot, and kill in response to such exercises of free expression, under the laws the OIC wants the U.S. to enact, it would be the editor and cartoonist of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Salman Rushdie, and Terry Jones who would be held criminally responsible for any damage or deaths that ensue.

Last March, the State Department and Secretary Clinton insisted that “combating intolerance based on religion” can be accomplished without compromising Americans’ treasured First Amendment rights.  But if that were so, there would be no possible excuse for engaging at this level with an organization like the OIC that is openly dedicated to implementing Islamic law globally.  This is why it is so important to pay attention not only to the present agenda, but to a series of documents leading up to it, issued by both the U.S. and the OIC.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, the DoS and OIC working teams will focus on implementation mechanisms for “Resolution 16/18,” a declaration that was adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011.

Resolution 16/18 was hailed as a victory by Clinton, because it calls on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion without criminalizing free speech — except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.”  But if the criterion for determining “incitement to imminent violence” is a new “test of consequences,” then this is nothing but an invitation to stage Muslim “Days of Rage” following the slightest perceived offense by a Western blogger, instructor, or radio show guest, all of whom will be held legally liable for “causing” the destruction, possibly even if what they’ve said is merely a statement of fact.  The implications of such prior restraint on free speech would be chilling (which is precisely the point).

In fact, the “test of consequences” is already being applied rigorously in European media and courts, where any act or threat of violence — whether by a jihadist, insane person, or counter-jihadist — is defined as a “consequence” of statements that are critical of some aspect of Islam and, therefore, to be criminalized.  ….. Now, if the OIC and the Obama administration have their way, it’s America’s turn.

I contend that is already well underway.  Consider Obama’s speech in Cairo that preceded the militant Jihadist overthrow of Mubarak.  Consider Obama’s celebration of every Muslim holy day with White House Pronouncements, but never once an address on Christmas or Easter.

Once it’s understood that under Islamic law, “slander” is defined as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike,” the scope of potential proximate causes of Muslim rage becomes obvious.

….Consider what is likely to be a bloodbath for Coptic Christians that will occur as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies are firmly in control of Egypt.  This provision means that any Western media that accurately report that coming massacre could be legally charged with “incitement to imminent violence” under the test of consequences, in effect blaming those who raise the alarm instead of those who perpetrate the violence.

….It would not be overreaching to conclude that the purpose of this meeting, at least from the OIC perspective, is to convince the Obama administration that free speech that rouses Muslim masses to fury — as defined by the “test of consequences” — must be restricted under U.S. law to bring it into compliance with sharia law’s dictates on slander.

It is important to note this section in the article at the Thinker, and consider the NDAA bill they passed last night that gives government the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely:

…the White House published “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” in December 2011.  The plan makes clear that “violent extremism,” not Islamic terrorism, is the primary national security threat to the homeland.  According to this “strategy,” the solution is partnership with “local communities” — the term used for the administration’s favored Muslim Brotherhood front groups, which already are using such relationships to silence their critics, both inside and outside government.  These new rules of censorship state that the term “violent extremism” can no longer be used in combination with terms like “jihad,” “Islam,” “Islamist,” or “sharia.”  And these new rules are already being taught to U.S. law enforcement, homeland security offices, and the military nationwide.

It is already policy in the Obama regime to strike and strip any reference to Jihadist Islam in conjunction with terrorism.  The entire focus of this regime is to paint Conservative Americans, returning vets and the TEA Party as domestic terrorists and extremists, with no reference to Islam whatsoever, AS POLICY.

The agenda of this week’s Department of State/OIC meetings may mark an important “milestone,” as Sayyed Qutb might put it, on the pathway to sharia in America.  If — under the “test of consequences” — those who speak truth about Islam, sharia, and jihad may be held criminally responsible for the violent actions of those who say they find such truth “offensive,” then, in the future, “violent extremists” could be just about anyone…anyone the government, in obedience to the sharia dictates of the OIC, decides they are.

Further, if the rubric is to be based on this “test of consequence,” then it creates a real temptation to any administration so inclined to “create” consequences that will justify a change in America’s free speech rights.  By way of example, analysts have suggested that the motive for the Department of Justice’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, now under congressional investigation, may have been to create a “crisis” — a “consequence” — caused by U.S. guns shipped across the border to Mexican drug-dealers (and used in multiple homicides, including an American Border Protection officer) to “nudge” public consensus to expand gun control laws.

Even if Obama’s State Department seems fully enamored with a “test of consequences” on speech critical of Islam, most Americans across the political spectrum will realize that this perverts the traditional understanding of the First Amendment.

Much more at link.

2 Comments

Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny, War On Jihadists

The Ruling Class Moves To Silence The TEA Party.

On top of being called “Hobbits“, “Terrorists” and “Extremists” by our nation’s leaders including the Vice President; Commissioning the DHS to draft an Assessment that classifies them as “Domestic Terrorists“; enacting a national strategy to ‘counter violent extremists’ – Conservative Americans and TEA Party members have yet another effort being suggested by our nation’s leaders to deal with them: Silence their freedom of speech.

This is where it begins folks – the full-on efforts by the Ruling Class and our political leaders to not only criminalize you – but silence you.  First by the same methods Hitler initially used; via shunning and boycott which is never enough for tyrants who will historically ALWAYS resort to using thugs to physically bully and intimidate them into silence, before the State purges the threat they declare upon their political enemies.

It is now a wide use tactic of the Left in this nation, when confronted with the truth – to state that your concerns or questions are “not legitimate”.  This gives them cover with the aid of complicit media to dodge any accountability or public scorn.  Soon however, that becomes unnecessary as raw contemptuous arrogance replaces any need to attempt a deflection such as when Nancy Pelosi was asked what authority the Constitution gives them to mandate the American people must buy health insurance – whereupon she replied “Are you serious?” followed by contempt in refusing to answer the question and declaring “That’s not a serious question”.

From there historically, it moves to the demonization of the opposition as ‘terrorists’ that we witnessed last week, which will be followed by efforts to mandate that any and all concerns by the opposition to the ruling class be ignored and discarded.  When the opposition to the ruling class resort to their own efforts and assymetric solutions towards their cause and message getting out – the ruling class will simply make those efforts illegal and penalize anyone giving aid and comfort to those opposed to them.

Warner Todd Huston lays it all out, as former Presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry states that Conservative views are not “real”, “legitimate” or “factual” and suggests that the news media not cover the opposition viewpoints to this regime now in power.

As Mr. Hudson rightly notes – this is just the latest evidence that the Ruling Class intends to quash free political speech of Conservatives.

Want Proof of How Democrats Would Shut You Up, Tea Partiers?

On MSNBC, John Kerry told us that Tea Party ideas are not “real” ideas, not “factual,” and thinks that the media should stop reporting on anything that smacks of ideas or news coming from Tea Partiers. If this isn’t proof of how Democrats and leftists would use the power of government to quash free political speech, what is?

Not long ago, several Democrats tried to once again raise the ugly head of the defunct Fairness Doctrine that was killed during the Reagan administration in order to limit the free political speech of conservatives. In those dark days when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives, several Republicans talked about forever outlawing the anti-free speech rule. Democrats at the time spoke up in favor of the Fairness Doctrine and countered that they wanted to bring it back.

Fortunately, the Fairness Doctrine has not come back. But this un-American policy idea has been talked about by leftists every few years since it was torpedoed by Reagan in 1987. They would love to bring it back. And despite what they claim, the left would use a new Fairness Doctrine to squelch the free political speech of those on the right.

Video at link.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

You see? You Tea Partiers are not “legitimate.” You are not “real,” not “serious.” Why, your ideas are so “absurd” that he thinks the Old Media should stop reporting on any politician or activist that spouts those “absurd notions.”

The media, Kerry said, “has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance.” This means he thinks any ideas that don’t toe the far left, liberal Democrat ideological line should be excluded from reportage, eliminated from the public debate.

Now, imagine what he’d do if he had the power of a renewed Fairness Doctrine under his control? Imagine if he had the power of law behind his claims.

If John Kerry and his comrades on the far left had their way, they’d use the force of law to shut you up, Tea Partiers. The left would not use the Fairness Doctrine for anything “fair.” They’d use it as a but another Alien and Sedition Act to shut down the access to the public square now enjoyed by conservative ideas.

Talk radio, cable TV, newspapers, magazines, the Internet all would be targeted for Kremlin-like control of their contents by Washington D.C. if the left had its way.

In fact, speaking of the Internet, there is a new stealth Fairness Doctrine in the works. It’s called Net Neutrality, just another way for the left to impose state control of the news.

3 Comments

Filed under Media Bias, Obama Marxist Tyranny