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.

 

 

Now Isn’t That Just Special

Sleeping in an airport

Kathy Shiffer, who blogs at Seasons of Grace, published a letter to the American people from Edward Snowden in Edward Snowden, Reluctant Refugee, Pens an Open Letter.  

It turns out that Mr Snowden is living in an airport terminal in Russia. That’s a hard life. But it probably protects him from one of the fears that Ron Paul voiced.

“I’m worried that somebody in our government might kill him with cruise missile or a drone missile,” Dr Paul has said.

So long as Mr Snowden keeps his residence inside a Russian airport terminal, he’s probably protected from American missiles. Such an attack on a Russian airport might have consequences.

This comment from New American gives a feel for the incredibly bi-partisan nature of the carrying on against Edward Snowden:

The Obama administration is considering charging confessed NSA-surveillance leaker Edward Snowden with illegally passing classified documents. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) called Snowden a “traitor.” Senator Dianne Feinstein (R-Calif.) said the 29-year old whistleblower is guilty of “treason.” And, inveterate warmonger Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tweeted, “I view Mr. Snowden’s actions not as one of patriotism but potentially a felony.” Adding, “I hope we follow Mr. Snowden to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice.”

As my gay friends would say, isn’t that just special?

Boehner feinstein snowden cached

We have Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senator Dianne Feinstein, together at last. They can’t agree on anything that would move this country forward, but they do agree that telling the American people that the government has put all of us under surveillance makes a man a “traitor,” and “guilty of treason.”

Why? Why would they stop their hate-off against one another long enough to get together in a new hate-off directed at this 26-year-old? Maybe it’s because they signed off on putting the American people under surveillance. Edward Snowden didn’t “betray” the American people. They did. Edward Snowden just let the rest of us know about it.

Mr Snowden has this to say in his letter:

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised — and it should be.

To read the rest, go here.

 

Feinstein Introduces Sweeping Gun Ban Bill

At least one gun control proposal is now in the hopper, and if it becomes law, it would be a big change.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca)   announced plans to introduce a sweeping gun control bill that would ban 158 types of rifles, as well as other shotguns, hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.

Feinstein claims that no guns will be confiscated. Her aim is to do away with the weapons by attrition over time. Representative Carolyn McCarthy, (D-NY) will file the same bill in the House of Representatives.

A Salon article describing the press conference with Senator Feinstein and Representative McCarthy reads in part:

In a press conference Thursday, Democrats unveiled a new version of the assault weapons ban that they will introduce into the House and Senate, which includes a ban on 158 specifically named military-style firearms.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who sponsored the Senate version of the bill and who worked on the assault weapons ban from the 90s that expired in 2004, said in her remarks that this will be a “tough battle,” but she is “incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again in this country.”

“The common thread in these shootings in that each gunman used a semi-automatic assault weapon” or a large capacity magazine, Feinstein said.

The legislation specifically prohibits 158 types of military grade firearms, as well as other semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can have a detachable magazine and have at least one military characteristic. As Feinstein explained, the 1994 version of the law had a two-characteristic test for a weapon to be banned, but that was “too easy to work around.”

Feinstein also emphasized that the ban will not effect weapons for hunting and sporting, and protects “2200 specifically named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. They are, by make and model, exempted from the legislation.” She added: “No weapon is taken from anyone. The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time. Therefore there is no sunset on this bill.” (Read more here.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X