YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK!

Posted by Tom

The "Home of the Free" and "Land of the Brave" is rapidly becoming the "Home of the Controlled" and "Land of the Intimidated".  The fundamental right of Americans to share their feelings in protest, specifically regarding those who need to hear their message the most, may now become a FELONY!

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time and now it's the First Amendment!

Let's take a look at H.R. 347, the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011," perhaps a better label would be the "First Amendment Eradication Act"  Incidentally, only three members of the House Of Representatives voted against this, among these were Justin Amash and Ron Paul.

H.R. 347 Explained:

The law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware of their presence. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection!....

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

In short, they can assign Secret Service protection to anyone they like, without your knowledge, and simply by being in the proximity to these persons can make you a FELON if you're peacefully protesting on any given subject or in ANY area they may choose to be in.

Free Speech is undisputably essential to preserving a democracy and in fact ensures the free exchange of ideas that recognizes Human Rights under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Let's look at how Chicago handles some basic Freedoms:

Christopher Drew thought he was exercising his First Amendment when he recorded an altercation with cops in 2009, but for the Chicago, Illinois artist, he couldn’t be further from the truth. He was approached by an officer with the Chicago Police Department three years ago and questioned about the artwork he was selling on the city’s State Street. When law enforcement realized that they were being recorded, Drew was dished felony charges under the eavesdropping law and ended up spending a few days in jail. Drew asked an Illinois judge to dismiss the hefty felony charge, but the court rejected his plea. Later this year his case is expected to go to trial, and if found guilty, Drew could serve 15 years in prison.
 
“In a democracy you are suppose to oversee your public servants. If they’re doing wrong you’re suppose to bring it to the attention of other citizens and to the court,” Drew explained to RT. “They have no privacy right, they are in public and they are on the public dime and doing public duty. That means that we’re their employer. We have a right to record our employees and bring that evidence to the system that they are doing wrong.”

Michael Allison has become a victim of the police state’s bizarre law, too. He was at his mom’s house in Illinois when cops showed up and questions the automobiles he had parked on the property. When Allison began recording his conversation with the cops, he was cuffed and charged with violating the eavesdropping law. Those charges included five counts of eavesdropping, each with a maximum of 15 years in prison.

For videotaping his own conversation with a cop on his family property, Allison could have served the rest of his life behind bars.


Never forget this.  The 2nd Amendment UNDERPINS and ENSURES ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!  You think it's outdated?  You better look around and think again!  Your liberties are being taken from you as we speak!

Let's take a look and see how MAYOR BLOOMBERG responds to a Journalist asking questions.  Dare you ask questions of the political elite or the Police will be used to intimidate you.....The Major who says we don't need guns sure thinks he needs and is entitled to MANY!

NC Teacher Suspended For Criticizing Obama On Facebook

Posted by Brian

Is this the new Amerika? A country where criticism of our leaders has now become something which can jeopardize your job.  I'm not talking about the military here, where good order and discipline are paramount.  Were talking a private citizen having the right, under the Constitution, to speak out against their elected officials.  It doesn't get any more American than that.
That this teacher even apologized pisses me off.  Apologize for what? Speaking her mind?  What the administration and school district have done by putting this teacher on a leave of absence has a chilling effect on others who would dare to speak out against those they disagree with.
This is the modern day left, who though they call themselves progressive, are really regressive. They lecture us as conservatives as living in the past because we would return to Constitutional principles.  In, fact it is they who are living in the past.  They seek to return to the days of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, and other despots throughout history, where criticizing the "king" got you imprisoned, or worse.
Sharon Aceta should not have apologized, although I understand she did so because of the fear of losing her job.  No, the school, the district, and the intolerant boobs who were "offended" by her Facebook post should apologize to her.
We still live in America, and unless or until this country has undergone it's final "fundamental" transformation, I will continue to speak out, and defend others who do, as well.

Teacher put on leave after Facebook post about Obama
Posted on: 7:02 pm, November 10, 2012, by Joe Borlik, updated on: 07:03pm, November 10, 2012

ROCK HILL, S.C. — A South Carolina middle school teacher was put on leave after officials say she posted an offensive statement about President Barack Obama on her personal Facebook page.

WSOC reported that Sharon Aceta, who teaches eighth-grade math at Rawlinson Road Middle School in Rock Hill, apologized after making the post on her personal Facebook page.

Her post read: “Congrats Obama. As one of my students sang down the hallway, ‘We get to keep our food stamps’ …which I pay for because they can’t budget their money… and really, neither can you.”
Continue Reading

Related articles

• Teachers Face Investigations for Anti-Obama Messages (radio.foxnews.com)

SHARIA ALERT! DOJ Refuse To Say If They Would Criminalize 'Criticism' Of Islam

Posted by Brian

If The Islamists Have Their Way, I Would Be Arrested For This Article

Members of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) have asked the Justice Department to "criminalize" criticism of Islam as "racial discrimination". Setting aside for the moment the absolute outrageousness of this request, even more outrageous is the Asst. Attorney General's refusal to answer the question of whether the DOJ would even entertain that request for any religion!

Let's be clear here:  I'm sick of this crap! Here, we have a group of Islamists, unindicted co-conspirators  in raising and sending money to the terrorist group Hamas, demanding that the DOJ effectively enforce a back-door for instituting Sharia Law in the United States, and this jackass can't, or won't, confirm if the DOJ is even "considering" it?

For anybody who thinks that Eric Holder's DOJ and the Obama Administration aren't "actively" instituting policies, issuing new regulations, and meeting with individuals and groups who are enemies of the U.S. to "fundamentally change" our country, and destroy it from within, you either have your head in the sand, aren't paying attention, or support it.  All are unacceptable.

Though 9/11 happened nearly eleven years ago, the Islamists have not abandoned their goals.  The one thing you can say about them is that they are patient.  From 632 AD to the present, there have been only two periods in which Islam has not been ruled by caliphates.  The first non-caliphate period was from 1258 -1299 AD, a period of 41 years.  The second is from 1924 to the present, or 88 years.  So, we are currently in the longest stretch of non-caliphatic rule in Islam's 1380 year history since the death of Mohammed.

If you think that the Islamists aren't "itching" to reestablish their caliphate, you are sadly mistaken.  And so are the members of this Administration, who have bent over backwards to kowtow to those who would have not just the United States, but all of the Middle East, Asia, and Western Europe under a one-world Caliphate.  They have stated as much! You wouldn't know it though, from the absolute blackout on this kind of reporting, from a media who exemplify the term "useful idiots".

The DOJ, it appears, is continuing the "submission" to the Islamists which is taking place throughout the Federal, and some State, agencies. The FBI has already gone through the process of removing "anti-Muslim" documents from its training materials, under the watchful eye of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), of course.  Never mind the fact that CAIR, like ISNA, has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The same with the Muslim Students Association (directly founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1963 at the Univ. of Illinois), the Muslim American Society, and the Islamic Circle of North America. To Obama, his Administration, and leftist dupes, we just all need to get along.

That's a dangerous position when you are dealing with an ideology whose faith says "submit or die".  Where's the common ground there?



DOJ Official Won’t Say Whether Justice Department Would ‘Criminalize Speech against Any Religion’
By Melanie Hunter July 26, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez refused to say Thursday whether the Justice Department would ever “entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion.”

Related articles

• Obama's New Islamic World Order
• The rise and threat of radical islam: an interview with Brigitte Gabriel
• Weasel Zippers: Islamist Group Vows To "Wipe Christianity From The Face Of The Earth"...
• Muslim congressman tied to terror co-conspirator
• U.S. Justice Depatment Sues To Force Action On Tennessee Mosque
• Calls for Islamic State in "moderate" Tunisia: "the people want a Caliphate"
• Top U.S. Islamic Group Calls for 'Gun Control'
• DOJ sues, forces illegally-approved Tennessee mosque open in time for Ramadan
• New Film Exposes Nashville Islamist Network
• Judicial Watch Sues FBI, Justice Department for Records Detailing FBI Director Mueller's Secret Meeting with Radical Islamic Organizations
• Proof that Huma Abedin Has Muslim Brotherhood Connections
• Five Congressmen Call for Muslim Brotherhood Influence Investigations

Media Matters Fascist Campaign Against Limbaugh

Posted by Brian

Media Matters, self-proclaimed defenders of journalistic fairness, have begun a full-frontal assault on free speech.  Using Rush Limbaugh as their focal point, they have begun radio ads in eight markets in an attempt to pressure local stations to drop Limbaugh from the airwaves.
By now, most have heard of Limbaugh's over the top remarks about Sandra Fluke, and the ensuing firestorm and feigned outrage from many on the left as well as some on the right. Regrettable as Rush's words were (he has since  publicly apologized), the incident also exposed the abject hypocrisy of those on the left who are virtually silent when liberal hosts and entertainers make remarks that are just as, if not much more outrageous and vile than what Limbaugh uttered.
Political commentators such as Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann have made comments that are much more beyond the pale than anything Limbaugh has said. Then, there are the so-called leftists like Bill Maher, who get free passes because he is doing "comedy", when he calls Sarah Palin a "c**t" or Michelle Bachmann a "bimbo".
In these and many other instances, Media Matters remain silent.  Keep in mind that Media Matters is a tax-exempt charitable organization.  Yet their attacks are saved exclusively for conservative talk show hosts, the GOP and Fox News. Their blatant bias is so in-your-face that their tax-exempt status is now being challenged. We are also finding out that Media Matters has had a plan since 2009 to attempt to get Rush Limbaugh off the airwaves.
Rush Limbaugh lit the fuse that started this firestorm, but Media Matters has been standing by with the cans of gasoline for over three years to turn a small brushfire into a manufactured media inferno.
This is not just an attack on Limbaugh. This is an attack on all who value free-speech. Radio hosts, bloggers, and ordinary citizens. You may agree or disagree with Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, or Keith Olbermann, but their right to voice their opinions should not be squelched by David Brock and Media Matters' Stalinist crusades.

Media Matters Launches New Ad Campaign Slamming Rush Limbaugh
Despite the media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh having died down, the conservative radio host isn't off the hook just yet.
According to the Washington Times, the liberal watchdog group Media Matters has launched a $100,000 ad campaign criticizing the host for calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" after she testified before the House on contraception.
The ads are currently being broadcast in eight cities, with some urging listeners to tell their local radio stations to take Limbaugh's show off the air and including the telephone numbers of stations broadcasting Limbaugh's show.

Squelching Free Speech: Argentina's New 'Evita' Takes Over Newsprint

Posted by Brian

Argentine government wins control of newsprint

By MICHAEL WARREN 
Associated Press

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- The paper used to produce newspapers came under government control in Argentina on Thursday, in a long-sought victory for President Cristina Fernandez in her dispute with the country's opposition media.

Argentina's senate, which is controlled by Fernandez's allies, voted 41-26 to control newsprint's manufacture, sale and distribution to media friends and foes alike.

Read More at AP News

CA: Judge Rules School Right To Ban American Flag Shirts On Cinco De Mayo

Posted by Brian
One more outrage from the People's Socialist Republic Of California, as a federal judge ruled in favor of a school who banned American Flag attire on Cinco de Mayo.  According to the school, which the judge concurred with, wearing American flag apparel could cause violence.  Apparently, the U.S. flag is disrespectful to wear on a Mexican holiday in the United States.

FED JUDGE: CALIF. SCHOOL WAS RIGHT TO FORBID STUDENTS’ AMERICAN FLAG T-SHIRTS ON CINCO DE MAYO

Should public school officials have the right to prevent students from wearing pro-American garb on Cinco de Mayo?

This question has been at the heart of a California court battle between the Morgan Hill Unified School District and students who were told by a principal and assistant principal that they could not wear American flag t-shirts on the Mexican holiday back in 2010.

Following the incident, a lawsuit against the district was launched by the students and their families. This week, the case came to a close, with a federal judge ruling against the students — a blow that is likely to infuriate some free speech advocates.

Read More at The Blaze

Related articles

• Don't display American Flag in American school. (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Not Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School (volokh.com)

Prayer "In Jesus' Name" Banned In N. Carolina

The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been dealt another blow by the U.S. 4th Circuit and the ACLU in North Carolina. Were they loaned a panel of judges from the ultra-liberal 9th Circuit?
The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The bastardization of this clause has led to everything from removing prayer in schools, to prohibiting valedictorians from saying a prayer at high school graduations. To atheists and those wanting to remove any mention of God in any public setting, the clause ends at "establishment of religion". They conveniently omit the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the clause. The clause was put there by the founders prohibit the federal government from establishing a state religion, not to remove any vestiges of religion from the public square. A reading of history would show that several of the original 13 states actually had "official" State religions, which the Constitution did not prohibit as it fell under "states rights". Eventually the states voluntarily removed the official state religions, but not because an activist federal court or judge ruled that they were required to, under the Constitution.
Moreover, to claim that somebody, including a priest or pastor who prays in a public forum, wuo ends a prayer with the phrase "in Jesus' name" is akin to government establishing an official religion strains the bounds of common sense.
Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will have wisdom to overturn this completely backwards decision issued by the 4th Circuit.

Appeals Court Rules Against Forsyth County in Prayer Case



Posted by Brian

Scholl Suspends Coach For Anti-Obama Opinions

Posted by Brian
As a teacher you can advocate for every liberal position you want, including criticizing Republican Presidents in the most vileways.  Having an opinion against a Democrat President is not healthy for your job though. Using fear, through tactics like this, to discourage dissent is Stalinist at its core.  What else would you call it?

Minnesota Wrestling Coach Put on Leave for Reportedly Insulting Obama, Challenging Him to a Fight

By Todd Starnes Published January 13, 2011
FoxNews.com

An Ultimate Fighting Championship fighter has been placed on administrative leave from his job at a Minnesota high school after he insulted President Obama’s intelligence and challenged the commander in chief to a fight.


READ MORE HERE--->

Will Reviving The Fairness Doctrine Reduce Violence?

Image via Wikipedia

Posted by Brian
Fairness Doctrine Not A Panacea For Violence Against Public Figures
By Brian Johnson - Brian's Right Perspective

The Fairness Doctrine, established by the FCC in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. In other words, if a Rush Limbaugh made a controversial statement, the station had to provide equal time to someone to rebut what Limbaugh said.  Instead of promoting debate, the Fairness Doctrine caused stations to avoid anything controversial at all.  The talk airwaves were littered with programs on how to get the perfect pie crust, green gardening, and a host of other programming that were more conducive to putting you to sleep than provoking debate.  In 1987, Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine through executive order.  Since that time talk radio has flourished, starting with Rush Limbaugh, and the medium now has scores of successful hosts and programming.  There are hosts across the political spectrum which challenge a persons worldview, and sometimes may even piss you off.  The point is is that there is something there for pretty much everyone.  You just have to find it, or in the case that you don't like what you're hearing, change the station.
The Left in this country argues that talk radio incites violence through what they claim is "hateful" rhetoric.  For the Left, all of the rhetoric comes from the conservative side of the spectrum. I have listened to everything from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Levin on the right, to Amy Goodman, Ed Schultz, and Mike Malloy on the left, and have serious issues with their assessment.  I have posted very recently on a lot of what has been said from the left and I will not rehash it here. They are all in the archives of my blog.  What I do want to do is address this accusation from the left, that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has somehow made it more dangerous for our political figures.  Was the political climate more or less charged when the Fairness Doctrine was in place? Has the rise of talk radio since its repeal seen an uptick in violence toward our elected officials and political public figures?
The Fairness Doctrine was in place from 1949 to 1987. 
In the "era" of the Fairness Doctrine we saw the following:

1950 - An assassination attempt on U.S. President Harry S. Truman occurred on November 1, 1950. It was perpetrated by two Puerto Rican pro-independence activists, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola.
Nov. 22, 1963 - President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas by Lee Harvey Oswald.
February 21, 1965 - Malcolm X assassinated in Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom by three members of the Nation Of Islam.
April 4, 1968 - Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee by James Earl Ray.
June 4, 1968 - Robert F. Kennedy assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles
September 5, 1975 -  An assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford by Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, a follower of Charles Manson, who pointed a Colt .45-caliber handgun at Ford. Larry Buendorf,^[118] a Secret Service agent, grabbed the gun and managed to insert the webbing of his thumb under the hammer, preventing the gun from firing.
September 22, 1975 - An Assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford by Sara Jane Moore, while standing in a crowd of onlookers across the street, pointed her .38-caliber revolver at him.^[120] Just before she fired, former Marine Oliver Sipple grabbed at the gun and deflected her shot.
December 8, 1980 - John Lennon was assassinated outside Lennon's Dakota apartments by Mark David Chapman.
March 30, 1981 - Assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan by John Hinkley outside the Hilton Washington hotel.

Post Fainess Doctrine 1987 - 2010:
January 8, 2010 - Assassination attempt on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords In Tuscon, Arizona by Jared Loughner.

The contrast is startling.  This, in no way, proves that the Fairness Doctrine causes people to want to harm politicians or politically active public figures.  It is to illustrate that the entire argument to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which I believe is an attempt by some of those in positions of power to squelch the free expression of ideas, is devoid of logic.  Radio is a medium which operates on the number of listeners the host can attract (ratings).  Revenue is thus generated by those ratings.  The most successful of those hosts generate the greatest revenue for those stations.  Even with that, there are shows which are liberal, conservative, socialist, religious, and every other kind of genre you can think of - literally hundreds. Many of those are not huge ratings getter's, but they are on the air. Reviving the Fairness Doctrine would limit, not increase your choices.  Instead it would put another nail into the coffin of free speech.

Related articles

• 3rd-Ranking Dem: Post-Loughner, Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine (reason.com)
• James Clyburn Uses Arizona Shootings To Call For Return Of "Fairness Doctrine" (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Talk radio: The return of 'fairness'? (politico.com)

Bullying Free Speech

Posted by Brian
Anti-bullying laws and the erosion of campus expression
Harvey Silverglate

Injustice Department

Few American institutions best the Congress in the destructive practice of turning a human tragedy into an assault on liberty. Exhibit A is the ongoing effort to ratchet up anti-bullying measures on campus—with potentially dire consequences for campus free speech.


Last fall, Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi took his life after discovering that two students had surreptitiously spied on his dorm room sexual encounter with a male, streaming video of it online. In response, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) and Rep. Rush Holt (D., N.J.) have authored a bill—dubbed “The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act”—that aims to prevent future incidents of collegiate “bullying” by dramatically expanding the scope of existing anti-harassment regulations. First introduced in November during the last Congress’ lame-duck session, Representative Holt stated this week that the bill will be reintroduced in the new Congress.

Even if well-intentioned, this proposed legislation is deeply flawed: Its restrictions are redundant, frustratingly vague, and dangerously broad. If enacted, the law would further erode college students’ speech rights, a foundational tenet of liberal education.  READ MORE HERE--->

Related articles

• Stop Making Laws Named After People Who Die (reason.com)
• FIRE Attacks Tyler Clementi Anti-Bullying Bill (pinkbananaworld.com)