Did you ever ask yourself why every Right the First Amendment guarantees is under attack EXCEPT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? Judge Andrew Napolitano tells us: are all under attack —— as is freedom of religion. I’ll get to freedom of religion later. First, I’ll answer the question: The press is an instrument of government propaganda. Freedom of speech was meaningless until the Internet came along. So freedom of speech must be eliminated in order to reestablish the government’s control over speech. For all practical purposes freedom of the press is a government Right that can only be exercised by those who own printing presses and/or TV transmitters. The owners of America’s so-called free press have no interest in protecting Rights they do not enjoy exclusively, yet they expect the American people to man the barricades to protect freedom of the press. The primary goal of press barons is to convince the public that the press is a defender of the Constitution when, in fact, the government would never have come so far in abolishing the Constitution without the press’ full co-operation. Freedom of the press includes the freedom to lie which it does for the government at every turn. When the government lies and the press does not expose the lie the press is the bigger liar. Not asking politicians to define the terms they use is an example of how the press lies for the government on a daily basis: 1. Middle class: Private sector or public sector? 2. Job creation: Private sector or government jobs? 3. Rights: Private sector American Rights or government Rights? Number 3 is the most egregious of all because the government is now defining Rights as negative or positive. Negative Rights (the Bill of Rights) are being eroded while positive Rights (the government’s Rights) are increasing. NOTE:. The only justification for a free press is when it maintains an antagonistic relationship towards government; every government —— liberal and conservative, democracy and dictatorship. America’s free press has not done that in more than a century; hence, freedom of the press is the one First Amendment freedom that is not worth defending. Freedom of religion is also under attack as everyone knows. Read on and prepare yourself for a massive migraine: March 15, 2012 Why Obama Wants the Contraception Mandate to Go to the Supreme Court By Andrew Schwartz http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ption_mandate_to_go_to_the_supreme_court.html The government is hellbent on abolishing freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Only sick minds could figure out how to use one to abolish the other. Returning to Judge Napolitano The following three videos offer the Judge at his very best. However, I must point out that taking back our constitutional freedoms won’t be easy for one very good reason. This country’s Founders did not have to defeat a large parasite class in order to establish individual liberties. No doubt, there were many colonists who supported the British king. In fact, many Royalists fled to Canada after the war ended. Royalists did not have anywhere near the political power our parasite class controls, nor was their number even close to the percentage of parasites the government created and continues to create. Listen closely to Napolitano’s critique of Bush the Younger and the Republicans, then tell me that Hussein must be replaced by REPUBLICAN Romney/Santorum/Gingrich in order to save the country. Those three dirt bags are big government Republicans as was Bush the Younger. There’s not a whit of difference between them and Hussein where it counts. You’re crazy if you think any one of them will work to repeal the Patriot Act. PART ONE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M1P53wMbnsw [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhNZjanX9k&feature=player_embedded"]Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and PATRIOT ACT Part 2 of 3 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY&feature=player_embedded"]Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - Part 3 of 3 - YouTube[/ame] 1ST AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE Can the Secret Service tell you to shut up? Andrew Napolitano: New law inhibits Americans' freedom to petition the government Published: 16 hours ago by Andrew Napolitano The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them. The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity. So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you? And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present? This is coming to a street corner near you. Certain rights, like thought and privacy and travel, can be exercised on their own. You don’t need the government to cooperate with you; you just need to be left alone. Other rights, like those intended to influence the political process, require that the government not resist your exercise of them. Remember the old one-liner from Philosophy 101: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make any noise? Here’s the contemporary version of that: If you can criticize the government, but it refuses to hear you, does your exercise of the freedom of speech have any value? When the framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, they lived in a society in which anyone could walk up to George Washington or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson on a public street and say directly to them whatever one wished. They never dreamed of a regal-like force of armed agents keeping public officials away from the public, as we have today. And they never imagined that it could be a felony for anyone to congregate in public within earshot or eyesight of certain government officials. And yet, today in America, it is. Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech. Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a “restricted” area may be prosecuted. And because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well. Permitting people to express publicly their opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to useful speech; and unheard political speech is politically useless. The same may be said of the rights to associate and to petition. If peaceful public assembly and public expression of political demands on the government can be restricted to places where government officials cannot be confronted, then those rights, too, have been neutered. Political speech is in the highest category of protected speech. This is not about drowning out the president in the Oval Office. This is about letting him know what we think of his work when he leaves the White House. This is speech intended to influence the political process. This abominable legislation enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties in Congress because the establishment loves power, fears dissent and hates inconvenience, and it doesn’t give a dam-n about the Constitution. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and only three members of the House voted against it. And the president signed it in secret. It is more typical of contemporary China than America. It is more George III than George Washington. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to assure open, wide, robust, uninhibited political debate, debate that can be seen and heard by those it seeks to challenge and influence, whether it is convenient for them or not. Anything short of that turns the First Amendment into a mirage. http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/can-the-secret-service-tell-you-to-shut-up/
I said this in the OP: I must admit that I did not mean Chinese propaganda: Beijing on the Potomac Paper that broke Watergate partners with Chinese Communist Party BY: Adam Kredo - March 15, 2012 5:00 am http://freebeacon.com/beijing-on-the-potomac/
I guess you haven't noticed the attacks on Fox News. I suppose the vicious attacks on Andrew Breitbart escaped your notice, too. The reason attacks on the press don't make much news is the news machine is owned by the liberals.
To Patrick T: The administrations attacks on FOX are bogus; most especially the tiff between Hussein and Bill OReilly. Do you really think Hussein and his media advisors are so dumb they do not know that singling out OReilly for criticism will only prompt more viewers to watch the Factor? Bottom line: FOX delivers the liberal message to more conservatives than does all of the other networks combined. Its a con job to get more conservatives to watch, and trust, FOX. In any event, the government is not attacking freedom of the press when it plays games with FOX. To Patrick T: Andrew Breitbart was primarily a conservative blogger. He did his best work, and acquired his fame, on the Internet. Incidentally, the Internet is a combination of free speech and freedom of the press. The government wants desperately to shut down the free speech part while it controls freedom of the press as it controls the old media. The government, including the United Nations, is working day and night to find some way to take control of content on the Internet. Their main obstacle is dealing with freedom of speech not freedom of the press. Remember this from 1998: First lady just doesn't get it Hillary Clinton's call for Internet "gatekeeping' reveals a lack of understanding REBECCA EISENBERG Sunday, February 22, 1998 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/02/22/BUSINESS904.dtl One slight disagreement: She gets it alright, she just doesnt like it. Defending a reputation has no value when it is all bad. To Patrick T: You made my case. If the government attacked freedom of the press it would be all over the Internet not to mention being all over the MSM. The fact is: There is nothing to report because the government does not attack freedom of the press for the reason I stated in the OP.
"To Patrick T: You made my case. If the government attacked freedom of the press it would be all over the Internet not to mention being all over the MSM. The fact is: There is nothing to report because the government does not attack freedom of the press for the reason I stated in the OP." Since you've admitted not having a case to make, good-bye. I really don't know why I bothered with you in the first place. It won't happen again. Enjoy your NYT.
