The Prez Who Hates the Bill of Rights and His Senatorial Minions Write a Little Law

The HHS Mandate. (First Amendment)

Surveilling the American people. (Fourth Amendment)

Gun control. (Second Amendment) 

Those pesky amendments keep getting in the way of better government. 

Thankfully, we have a Congress (who we trust soooo much) who, as everyone knows, always puts the needs of the American people ahead of any special interests, to take care of those little tripping-up points in the Constitution. These are the folks who sat on their thumbs while the administration pushed through a quasi law attacking religious freedom called the HHS Mandate. They are the ones who want to find some loophole to allow them to do away with the right to bear arms. 

Their latest little move is to rescind the legal protections of the free press to protect their sources. They are doing this by “defining” who is the “press” and doing it to their advantage. What they’re doing is limiting First Amendment protections to the “legitimate” (i.e., the corporate) press.

As anyone with half a brain knows, the corporate press is not free. They are owned. And they function more and more as a propaganda tool for the government, which also appears to be owned. 

It follows and it’s easy to follow that if the corporate press is the only legitimate press, then there is no free press. 

Slam dunk and done. First Amendment, (both parts) tamed and brought to heel. 

To put a cherry on top this rescission of the First Amendment, our Senators want to make the Attorney General of the United States the person who gets to decide which press is “legitimate” and worthy of First Amendment protections. 

Now, let’s think for a moment. Who appoints the Attorney General of the United States? 

The President of the United States. 

And who confirms this appointment?

The Senate of the United States.

Mr Fox, here’s your gun. You’re now in charge of the henhouse. 

From Breitbart:

An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a “journalist” under law would be anyone who: 

  • Works or worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” Opinion journalists might not be covered.
  • Bloggers and citizen journalists – citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet – would not be covered, unless it was determined that “at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” In other words, the government – the Department of Justice – would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.
  • Those explicitly excluded from protection include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity’s work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization.” Glenn Greenwald, please contact your lawyer.



Pope Accepts Bishop Finn's Resignation
Some Things, You Don't Forget.
Killing Grandma to Kiss the Zeitgeist.
Ds Win: Senate Sex Trafficking Bill Will Pay for Abortions.
  • FW Ken

    As I understand it, the bill began as a measure against libel (or slander, I get them mixed up). And that makes a certain amount of sense, given that current technology allows me to say any salacious thing I want, and it can go viral among those who agree with my POV. Defaming another person is not protected speech in the first amendment, as I understand it.

    Well, and good, but as I have read (not sure it was a real journalist) was that part of the bill was aimed at protecting the Attorney General and other government officials. Fox and henhouse indeed; but at a deeper level, it’s frightening to think that the government can “grant” rights guaranteed under the Constitution. If they have that power, then they also have to power to take those rights away. We see that clearly in the proposed bill.

  • kickyourace

    Be sure to check out the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment. This amendment restores the voice of the people in Congress. Google it.

  • peggy-o

    I am surprised that there are so few comments on something so critical as our constitution. Paul Craig Roberts has an excellent article about this. The mainstream media is owned by 5 large corporations and it’s been that way for years. You’re right==we haven’t had a free press for a long time. Once the FCC chucked the rule of 7′s regarding media ownership in markets, online media has offered the best hope for serious investigative journalism..This bill, sadly does not surprise me. This may sound crazy but there are days I think that NBC is just a front company for the CIA. Or else as my print journalist friends say, butts on a couch. Thanks for the alert.

  • FW Ken

    Tangential, but if you will allow:

    The local news had a story on a high school textbook that mangled the 2nd amendment, which they described in no fewer words than the amendment itself. My question was why high school students are not reading the primary text rather than some textbook writer’s interpretation?

    The comment is less ideological than pedagogical. Except for this: poorly educated citizens are easy targets for unscrupulous politicians.