Showing posts with label Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amendment. Show all posts

Friday, March 21, 2014

Middle School Assignment: Second Amendment Requires Gun Registration

At The Daily News Source, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by The Daily News Source and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


The Daily News Source does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on The Daily News Source.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to The Daily News Source and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on The Daily News Source send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


The Daily News Source has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. The Daily News Source"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Middle School Assignment: Second Amendment Requires Gun Registration

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

If 2nd Amendment Doesn"t Protect AK-47s, 1st Amendment Doesn"t Protect Modern Media

At The Daily News Source, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by The Daily News Source and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


The Daily News Source does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on The Daily News Source.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to The Daily News Source and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on The Daily News Source send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


The Daily News Source has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. The Daily News Source"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



If 2nd Amendment Doesn"t Protect AK-47s, 1st Amendment Doesn"t Protect Modern Media

The Open Anti-Second Amendment Ideology of Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee Vivek Hallegere Murthy

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



The Open Anti-Second Amendment Ideology of Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee Vivek Hallegere Murthy

Naomi Wolf reconsiders the 2nd Amendment

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Naomi Wolf reconsiders the 2nd Amendment

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Mark Levin Accepts Andrew Breitbart Defender Of The First Amendment Award


Mark Levin Accepts Andrew Breitbart Defender Of The First Amendment Award


Mark Levin accepts the inaugural “Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award” at CPAC on Thursday.




RealClearPolitics Video Log



Mark Levin Accepts Andrew Breitbart Defender Of The First Amendment Award

Monday, February 24, 2014

Flynt & Falwell: A First Amendment Odd Couple



The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics have ended, for better or worse. In terms of international opinion, the results of the Games were mixed. On one hand, Western critics made themselves look partisan and petty with their steady stream of kvetching about the quality of the snow, the hotel accommodations, and the security. On the other hand, Russia’s reputation for repression was hardly eased by the testimonials of persecuted gays in that country, by riot police roughing up demonstrators, or by the outbreak of violence in Ukraine, where a Moscow-backed leader authorized deadly force against protestors. So in that sense, Americans were reminded, even if their athletes didn’t win as many gold medals as they’d hoped, of the strength of our democracy.


That’s a fitting historical theme for this date in history: On Feb. 24, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the right to freedom of expression—even involving the most unsavory form of satire, in this case aimed at televangelist Jerry Falwell.


The person doing the aiming was Larry Flynt. In the 1970s, he emerged as a pornographer and social critic who, in his own words, was intent on “pushing the envelope of taste” in the pages of Hustler, his unapologetically raunchy magazine.


In this aim, he did not fail. His publication stood apart, even within its genre, for its misogyny, gynecological treatments of the female form, racial stereotypes, bathroom humor, vicious political satire—usually aimed at Republicans—and reflexive irreverence.


Hustler featured a regular running cartoon of a pedophile named “Chester the Molester,” published a photograph of Jackie Kennedy Onassis sunbathing nude on a yacht, and made fun of first lady Betty Ford’s mastectomy. (The latter was the only one for which Flynt ever expressed remorse.)


Sometimes the material was there for its shock value; some of it was to titillate readers; some was there, well, just because Flynt could do it. After a woman was raped by several men on a pool table at a bar in New Bedford, Mass., Hustler produced a mock civic billboard, “Welcome to New Bedford, the Portuguese Gang Rape Capital of the World.”


But beneath the crudity was a political message—one embracing a socially libertine lifestyle. When “Deep Throat” star Linda Lovelace became an anti-porn crusader who said she’d been forced into X-rated films by her husband at the point of a gun, Hustler ran a bestiality snapshot of her from an earlier porn movie with the snarky caption, “Notice the gun in Fido’s paw.”


His publication came to the attention of various cultural traditionalists, not excluding a televangelist from Virginia who was making his own name in the new media culture. Larry Flynt wasn’t a fellow to turn the other cheek, however, and he fired back at Jerry Falwell: Inside the front cover of the November 1983 issue was a parody of Jerry Falwell talking about his “first time.” It was modeled after actual Campari liqueur ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their “first” times—ostensibly tasting Campari, but with an obvious sexual double entendre.


In the telling of Hustler’s editors, Falwell’s “first time” was a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his own mother in an outhouse. Falwell wasn’t a subscriber to the magazine, but a news reporter informed him of the parody. As it happens, Falwell’s mother had recently died. Incensed, he sued in state court for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.


At the trial, a jury ruled that a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that Hustler was really claiming these outrages were true—but they sided with the pastor on the emotional distress part of the tort. A federal judge upheld the verdict, as did the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. So the Supreme Court took the case, and its February 24, 1988 ruling surprised many — including Flynt.


“This case presents us with a novel question involving First Amendment limitations upon a state’s authority to protect its citizens from the intentional infliction of emotional distress,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in an 8-0 decision.


“We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most,” he added. “[Falwell] would have us find that a state’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do.”


To decide otherwise, the eight justices reasoned, would effectively outlaw political cartooning. This, too, the high court ruled, would be an unwise and unconstitutional decision to render. Rehnquist quoted approvingly from the words of a cartoonist:


“The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting, and is always controversial in some quarters.”


The Falwell-Flynt saga had another twist as well. It came in 1997, nearly 15 years after their feud began. Flynt’s autobiography had just been published, and a movie, “The People vs. Larry Flynt,” had also been released, which is how Flynt found himself seated with Falwell on “Larry King Live.” Or, to be more precise, found himself in a bear hug from the affable pastor.


“I disagreed with Falwell on absolutely everything he preached, and he looked at me as symbolic of all the social ills that a society can possibly have,” Flynt would write 10 years later, on the occasion of Falwell’s death. “But I’d do anything to sell the book and the film, and Falwell would do anything to preach, so King’s audience of 8 million viewers was all the incentive either of us needed to bring us together.


The two men hadn’t seen each other since they faced off in court in the early 1980s—and their differences over politics, religion, and public comportment hadn’t eased in the meantime—so Flynt figured Falwell hated him, an emotion he was only too glad to reciprocate. But Jerry Falwell, despite his fire-and-brimstone theology and his antediluvian views on gay rights, wasn’t much of a hater. His affectionate hug of Flynt clearly caught the pornographer off-guard. Moreover, he discovered that he kind of liked Falwell. He was even more impressed when the evangelist showed up unannounced at Hustler’s Beverly Hills office and proposed that the two men go around the country debating the First Amendment, which they did.


“To this day, I’m not sure if his television embrace was meant to mend fences, to show himself to the public as a generous and forgiving preacher or merely to make me uneasy,” Flynt wrote in 2007. “But the ultimate result was one I never expected and was just as shocking a turn to me as was winning that famous Supreme Court case: We became friends.” 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



Flynt & Falwell: A First Amendment Odd Couple

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Second Amendment Cases


Cases concern the right to carry concealed handguns outside the home


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 24, 2014


shallnotbeinfringed


Three cases involving Second Amendment issues were turned away from the Supreme Court on Monday. The cases concerned the right of Americans to carry firearms outside their homes for self-defense.


The Court did not comment on petitions for certiorari for NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, NRA v. McCraw and Lane v. Holder.


Constitution Daily reports the cases were considered on Friday in private conference.


A fourth case, however, may ultimately be considered by the Court and settle the matter. Drake v. Jerejian addresses gun control in New Jersey. The case argues that the Second Amendment permits a resident of the state to carry a firearm outside the home without providing justification to the state. A number of amici curiae briefs were filed with the Court on February 12.


The Court is set to respond by March 14, according to the SCOTUSBlog.


The Court has not ruled on the Second Amendment since 2010 when it issued a decision on McDonald v. City of Chicago. The case added to the 2008 Heller decision. Heller held in a 5-4 decision the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense. It struck down a DC law outlawing the possession of handguns in the home.


The decision follows a ruling issued last week by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned a prohibition on carrying concealed handguns. The Court ruled that carrying a handgun “outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.”


Rulings on carrying firearms outside of the home have been mixed. The 7th Circuit concurred with the 9th Circuit that carrying a gun in public is covered under the Second Amendment. Other courts, however, including the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Circuits, have issued less definitive opinions.


Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit struck down a California law restricting the carrying of a concealed weapon in the state. A majority ruled that restriction on carrying firearms in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and San Francisco violate the Second Amendment.


This article was posted: Monday, February 24, 2014 at 10:48 am









Infowars



Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Second Amendment Cases

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Law Enforcement Training Makes 2nd Amendment Advocates “Domestic Terrorists”



Print Friendly and PDF


Screen Shot 2014-02-18 at 12.27.00 PM


It took over a year to get officials to admit it, but finally, through FOI requests, they can no longer hide it.
Documents from the Ohio National Guard prove that 2nd Amendment supporters with “anti-government” opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists in a disaster drill. Expect much more of this to come.


On January 18, 2013, WSAZ (NBC Huntingon/Charleston, WV) reported that Scioto County, OH held a mock disaster drill
in conjunction with Scioto County first responders and the Ohio Army National Guard 52nd Civil Support Unit.
The mock “ENEMY”? Two school employees who were disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.


The Ohio National Guard 52nd Civil Support Team training scenario involved a plot from local school district employees to use biological weapons in order to advance their beliefs about “protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights.”


Portsmouth Chief of Police Bill Raisin told NBC 3 WSAZ-TV in Huntington, West Virginia that the drill accurately represented “the reality of the world we live in,” adding that such training “helps us all be prepared.”


Internal ONG documents provided to Media Trackers after repeated delays provide further context to what WSAZ-TV reported last winter.


In the disaster-preparedness scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School employees poisoned school lunches with mustard gas, acting on orders from white-nationalist leader William Pierce.


The ONG team discovered biological weapons being produced in the school, requiring activation of containment and decontamination procedures.


Participants in the disaster drill located documents expressing the school employees’ “anti-government” sentiments, as well as a note identifying Pierce as the fictional right-wing terrorists’ leader.


According to that report, the first responders who handled the mock emergency took special note of what appeared in the classroom of a school that was searched during the exercise.


“On the chalkboard as well as the tables there were several statements about protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights,” the summary read.


…Although it’s not referenced specifically in the incident summary report, the 38 pages of documents obtained by MediaTrackers also includes a 2011 article pertaining to gun control that’s on file alongside other evidence obtained from the school, including the name and phone number purportedly belonging to William Pierce, a now-deceased notorious neo-Nazi.


The 2011 article contained among the released documents is a CNN piece entitled “Why the NRA won’t talk gun control with Obama.”


Click here to download the documents obtained and released by MediaTrackers.org.


The MediaTrackers article notes that when ONG’s 52nd Civil Support Unit participated in a similar drill involving left-wing terrorists with Athens County first responders late last year, public officials apologized the next day in response to complaints from local environmentalist groups.


The mea culpa, released in December 2013 by Athens County officials, said “the scenario caused distress to people who have spent countless hours striving to protect the environment and our citizens.”


Thus far, no apology has been issued in this case involving Second Amendment supporters.


Scioto County Emergency Management Agency director Kim Carver refused to comment, telling Media Trackers she was “not going to get into an Ohio Army National Guard issue that you have with them.”


Ohio National Guard Communications Director James Sims II suggested Media Trackers was “inferring” from the ONG document’s contents as opposed to “what’s actually in the report.”


After excerpts of the report were read to him, Sims said it was “not relevant” to understand why conservatives may feel unduly targeted by ONG’s training scenario.


“Okay, I’m gonna stop ya there. I’m going to quit this conversation,” Sims concluded. “You have a good day.”


“The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are true conservatives and patriots, who don’t have guns for any other reason than that the Second Amendment gives them that right,” Portage County TEA Party Executive Director Tom Zawistowski said in a separate Media Trackers interview.


Zawistowski has sent a letter to Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan demanding an immediate investigation into what he calls “an even more onerous type of targeting” by the federal government.


Since the article was published, it has received international attention thanks to a link from DrudgeReport.com that as of 7:00 a.m. February 12 is entering its third day of being highlighted on that site.


Last evening (February 11, 2014), a statement was posted at the official website of the Ohio National Guard:


“In January 2013, Ohio National Guard 52nd Civil Support Team members participated in a one-day training exercise in Portsmouth that was created and run by the West Virginia National Guard. The exercise — one of more than 20 the Team did last year — was designed to test team members’ ability to respond to an unknown chemical, biological, radiological or high-yield explosive incident. To maximize the realism of the exercise, the Ohio National Guard wasn’t involved in the creation or execution of the exercise’s fictitious scenario and was deliberately not informed of its details in advance. It’s not accurate to suggest that certain details of the exercise somehow reflect views or opinions of officials of the Ohio National Guard.”


In the Athens County incident last year, it was similarly noted that the scenario was not created by the ONG. In speaking of that scenario, which involved a left-wing anti-fracking extremist group, Athens Co. Commissioner President Lenny Eliason observed that “you want to have it as realistic as possible, but you don’t want to single out an issue as emotional as that.”


Indeed.


Critics say it is telling that a government group’s chosen bogeyman would be Second Amendment supporters.


“They were characterizing gun owners and Second Amendment supporters as white extremists,” Chad Baus, of the Buckeye Firearms Association, told FoxNews.com. “It was a month after Sandy Hook. There was a large debate where gun owners were being blamed. I think the timing of it was extremely important here.”


Print Friendly and PDF


Posting Policy


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.



Jan Morgan Media



Law Enforcement Training Makes 2nd Amendment Advocates “Domestic Terrorists”

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Rand Paul Sues Obama Administration Over NSA Fourth Amendment Violations

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Rand Paul Sues Obama Administration Over NSA Fourth Amendment Violations

Friday, January 24, 2014

Dallas City Council Expands Ban On First Amendment


Newly expanded ordinance outlaws any activity the city claims to be “distracting to motorists”


Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
January 24, 2014


The Dallas, Texas City Council recently expanded an existing ordinance which bans anyone carrying a sign within 75 feet of a freeway to also prohibit anyone from peacefully assembling on or near service roads, bridges and overpasses, including those not holding signs and individuals the city considers to be dressed provocatively.


Protest Ordinance


Passed by the council at their latest meeting, the expanded ordinance gives police and code enforcement officers free reign to ticket or arrest anyone that they deem to be “distracting motorists,” a term vague enough for the government to enforce in almost any situation without an actual complaint.


“Rather than prohibit the carrying of signs that distract motorists within 75 feet of the designated highways, the proposed amendment would prohibit all conduct intended to distract motorists by individuals standing within the lateral curb line of the highways, including adjoining service or frontage roads as well as on bridges or overpasses over the highways,” the proposal reads.


The ban includes individuals who are not holding signs and those who are “wearing any costume, clothing, attire or accessory intended to attract or seek the attention of the public,” provisions which are so broad, they would seemingly apply to those wearing swimsuits while advertising a charity car wash and even those wearing the latest in fashion trends.


Out of Dallas’s 14 city council members, four voted against the measure, including one member who blasted the ordinance as violating the First Amendment, according to the Dallas News.


The council member, Philip Kingston, also added that the ordinance opens the city up to additional lawsuits.


However, the Chair of the Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee, Vonciel Jones Jill, supported the proposal and said that under the old ordinance, officers did not have authority to regulate the conduct of citizens assembled in public.


“No one is attempting to control speech,” she said. “That is not the point of the ordinance.”


“The point is to regulate conduct.”


Jill would be wise to actually read the First Amendment, because it recognizes the right of the people to assemble peacefully, not just the right to free speech.


Officials will no doubt use this ordinance to shut down any sort of gathering that challenges their authority and the status quo by hiding their political suppression under the guise of “driver safety.”


Back in November, the Dallas Police Dept. attempted to stop Alex Jones and the Infowars crew from protesting outside the Federal Reserve building.


A spokesperson for the police told the crowd that by carrying signs and handing out flyers in public, they were violating two city ordinances.


“Within 75 feet of a freeway or service road, according to the Dallas city ordinance, you may not hold a sign,” she said, adding that handing out leaflets to drivers was also violating city code.


These officials are simply using city ordinances to deceptively violate basic human freedoms recognized by the Bill of Rights.


This article was posted: Friday, January 24, 2014 at 2:41 pm










Infowars



Dallas City Council Expands Ban On First Amendment

Thursday, December 12, 2013

South Carolina to use 10th Amendment to nullify Obamacare

South Carolina to use 10th Amendment to nullify Obamacare
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obamacare1-400x275.jpg


South Carolina to use 10th Amendment to nullify Obamacare



There is an old adage that infers that a right not practiced eventually makes that right invalid.  This illogical argument is normally used in the instances of the right to bear arms as most Americans have rarely carried sidearms in public view over the past 60 years.


However, another important right for our time that has been downplayed in the public eye as the Federal government has grown in power, is the 10th Amendment, or right of the states to nullify laws created by the government that are not theirs to impose according to the Constitution.  And in the state of South Carolina, the legislature is now imposing their 10th Amendment right to nullify Obamacare as being unconstitutional under the auspices that states cannot be compelled to enforce Federal law per legal precedence.


House Bill 3101, titled the “South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act,” passed the state House of Representatives last April by a 65-34 vote. The bill now heads to the GOP-controlled Senate with special-order priority, setting up the likelihood that South Carolina will become the first state to exempt citizens and businesses from all participation in the Affordable Care Act.


The bill’s main component prohibits agencies, officers and employees of the state of South Carolina from implementing any provisions of the Affordable Care Act, leaving implementation of the national health-care law entirely in the hands of a federal government that lacks the resources or personnel to carry out the programs it mandates.


This provision, according to Davis, comes from the anti-commandeering doctrine established in case law that says feds can’t compel states to enforce federal laws.


Additional provisions of H3101 further neuter the Affordable Care Act by outlawing state exchanges, issuing tax deductions to individuals equal to the tax penalties levied by the federal government, and directing the state attorney general to sue over whimsical enforcement of the law. Taken together, the provisions effectively repeal the federal law for the people of South Carolina. – Daily Caller via Zerohedge



states-rights


Using the aforementioned anti-commandeering doctrine, SC House Bill 3101 would in essence force the Federal Government to create, fund, implement, and enforce the Affordable Health Care Act in all regions it covers, and could not compel any state or individual to perform functions of the program without voluntary acceptance.


State Sovereignty and Anti-Commandeering Cases


The anti-commandeering doctrine, recently announced by the Supreme Court in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, prohibits the federal government from commandeering state governments: more specifically, from imposing targeted, affirmative, coercive duties upon state legislators or executive officials. This doctrine is best understood as an external constraint upon congressional power—analogous to the constraints set forth in the Bill of Rights—but one that lacks an explicit textual basis. – Sage Pub



The Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was legal under the auspices that Congress and the Federal government have the power to tax, and can impose any such taxes on commerce and trade.  However, it does not have the power to force states and individuals to accept one or more requirements of a law or program, as noted in the opt-out clause Obamacare has for healthcare recipients.  And for the state of South Carolina, this new precedent being created where the Federal government must perform every facet of the program to be legal under the Constitution, will either create a crisis where the government must now spend hundreds of billions of dollars to facilitate the program’s full implementation, or instead, establish a path through which states can choose to fully de-commit from Obamacare, and abolish its power over the states and individuals.


Kenneth Schortgen Jr is a writer for Secretsofthefed.comExaminer.com, and hosts the popular web blog, The Daily Economist. Ken can also be heard Friday evenings giving an weekly economic report on the Angel Clark radio show.


Comments


comments




Secrets of the Fed




Read more about South Carolina to use 10th Amendment to nullify Obamacare and other interesting subjects concerning Commentary at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Feinstein Unveils Her Draconian Attack on The 2nd Amendment

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Feinstein Unveils Her Draconian Attack on The 2nd Amendment

Friday, December 6, 2013

Kansas community ordinance challenges Fourth Amendment

Kansas community ordinance challenges Fourth Amendment
http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/12/code-inspector-300x200.jpg


UP TO CODE: A new ordinance in Lawrence would expand an existing program to allow city building inspectors to search, photograph and video record issues inside rental housing.

UP TO CODE: A new ordinance in Lawrence would expand an existing program to allow city building inspectors to search, photograph and video record issues inside rental housing.



By Travis Perry │ Kansas Watchdog


OSAWATOMIE, Kan. — After ruling earlier this year that city residents aren’t capable of safely managing furniture on their own front porch, one Kansas community is considering taking its control of residents lives to the next level: mandated governmental inspections.


That could soon be the reality for the thousands of people living in the more than 20,000 rental units across Lawrence if city commissioners approve an expansion of its rental licensure ordinance.


The city already has a process through which tenants or landlords can request inspections if they suspect some kind of problem, but the new proposal would make such action compulsory.


As it stands, the ordinance would require landlords to register their properties to the tune of about $ 25 annually per location. Additionally, once every three years 10 percent of a landlord’s properties would be subject to mandatory searches by city building inspectors looking for major and minor health and safety violations — regardless of whether a tenant occupies the property. If no major violations are found, the given property will be bumped to a six-year inspection cycle as incentive.


Read the full ordinance here.


The program itself has existed in some form for more than a decade, but so far it has been relegated to a relatively small portion of the city. But up for grabs now is a proposal that would expand the measure across the municipality, and into the living rooms of countless residents. While officials argue the ordinance is to combat slum lords and improve “life safety,” opponents are saying the measure could pose a significant threat to Fourth Amendment rights.


Inspectors would be tasked with documenting through photographs and video any violations they find. Of course, there’s no telling what else could be caught in the scope of an inspector’s lens, and whether that information could make it into the hands of local law enforcement.


While the measure was set to come up for a vote Tuesday, an outpouring of opposition pushed city officials to table the measure for a few more weeks. A significant number of those voicing concern referenced a similar 2009 ordinance enacted — and later repealed — in Kansas’ other big college town, Manhattan.


Only months before the program’s demise in 2011, a Manhattan city inspection resulted in several college students being hauled before a municipal judge to face a litany of code violations. The young adults were sentenced to 15 days in jail, but they ultimately received nine months’ probation, contingent upon further compliance.


Aside from the privacy intrusion, the measure would also constitute a significant expansion of local government staff and spending. City officials estimate they would need to hire five full-time inspectors, as well as an administrative staffer, to handle the influx of bureaucracy associated with the ordinance. The projected cost associated with this is about $ 400,000.


But never mind the fact that the program isn’t financially sound.


A 2012 city audit concluded the current, limited program and fee schedule is woefully inadequate. Over a two-year period, auditors concluded that registration revenue — totaling about $ 40,000 — covered less than half of the salary and benefit costs associated with the program, instead sloughing the majority of the cost onto general revenues.


So, naturally, auditors suggest the city simply expand. Oh, and they also say commissioners should hike up the fee to $ 40 annually, though it’s not reflected in the proposal’s current form.


The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri announced recently it plans to launch an investigation into privacy threats posed by the ordinance, legal director Doug Bonney noted in a letter to city officials in late November. Bonney told Kansas Watchdog he had heard city code officials would — or could — pressure landlords into compelling their tenants to sign consent forms permitting inspections.


The matter raises questions about whether consent is truly voluntary, Bonney said.


A federal appeals court in 2007 upheld an earlier challenge to the city’s limited rental licensing program.


Related: Kansas community cracks down on couches


Contact Travis Perry at travis@kansaswatchdog.org, or follow him on Twitter at @muckraker62. Like Watchdog.org? Click HERE to get breaking news alerts in YOUR state!



Please, feel free to “steal our stuff”! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more



Watchdog.org




Read more about Kansas community ordinance challenges Fourth Amendment and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Saturday, November 23, 2013

A Century of Failure: Repeal the 16th Amendment

fairtaxTax Code ‘bigger than the Bible with none of the good news’


HOUSTON, Nov. 22, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Americans For Fair Taxation® (AFFT) announced today their support for Congressman Jim Bridenstine’s (OK-1) transformational legislation repealing the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.


“As the leading advocate of replacing our corrupt income tax system with a progressive, national consumption tax, AFFT is proud to stand with Representative Bridenstine in repealing the 16th Amendment,” said Cynthia Canevaro, Executive Director.


She added, “Recent IRS scandals repeat a longstanding pattern of political attacks, taxpayer abuse and business destruction by a federal agency that knows no boundaries, has no controls and operates without an ethical compass.”


“In 1913, Congress gilded the lily when they enacted the 16th Amendment, providing the most far-reaching and invasive Congressional failure still burdening the American people today.”


Added Bill Harrington, volunteer Oklahoma FairTax director, “The 16th Amendment is an affront to the American people’s freedom. The IRS has the ability to confiscate property and impose fines on every individual in the United States without due process. We are proud that an Oklahoma Representative has stepped forward to finally address this massive injustice.”


“With the introduction of this legislation, Congressman Bridenstine has given the nation a gift. Congress can continue feeding the special interests fatted calf while ignoring the gross injustices brought about by the 16th Amendment, or they can choose to enact this legislation and begin regaining the American people’s trust and admiration,” said Mrs. Canevaro.


Americans For Fair Taxation: www.FairTax.org

Repeal 16: www.repeal16.org



Americans For Fair Taxation® (FairTax.org) is a national, non-partisan grassroots organization that educates public officials, candidates for office and Americans nationwide on the FairTax to gain support for HR 25/S 122. We do not advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, nor favor any candidate or political party, over another. FairTax.org provides information, briefing materials, public policy data and research for all.


Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati



Conservative Daily News



A Century of Failure: Repeal the 16th Amendment

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Flores Amendment to Department of Homeland Security Appropriations FY 2014



Congressman Flores successful added an amendment to the FY 2014 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which prevents funds from being made ava…
Video Rating: 0 / 5



Flores Amendment to Department of Homeland Security Appropriations FY 2014

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Fourth Amendment activists adopt a highway next to NSA surveillance center in Utah

Fourth Amendment activists adopt a highway next to NSA surveillance center in Utah
http://isbigbrotherwatchingyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/74cb6__nsa_surveillance__default.jpg


Fourth Amendment activists adopt a highway next to NSA surveillance center in Utah

K.S.L. 5 and K.U.T.V. 2 in Salt Lake City, Utah – 10/9/13 Restore the Fourth Amendment Constitution adopt a highway NSA National Security Agency Utah Data Ce…
Video Rating: 4 / 5




Read more about Fourth Amendment activists adopt a highway next to NSA surveillance center in Utah and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Thursday, September 19, 2013

O"Reilly: Press At Odds With Public Over Second Amendment





O’REILLY: There is no question the American media is opposing the majority of Americans over the Second Amendment. And the reason is that most journalists live in secure places. Here in New York City, many press people live in high-rise apartment buildings protected from intruders. But most Americans don’t have the money to do that. So they must protect themselves. That’s why the founding fathers put the Second Amendment into the Constitution — self-protection. Once again, when Americans lose their lives to violent crime, that situation should never ever be exploited for political gain.




RealClearPolitics Video Log



O"Reilly: Press At Odds With Public Over Second Amendment

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Video: Feinstein: First Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A Right!


California Senator Dianne Feinstein has proposed an amendment to the Media Shield Law that would ignore the protection afforded by the First Amendment and would limit the law’s protection only to “real reporters,” not bloggers and other upstart alternative media types.


Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.



Western Journalism



Video: Feinstein: First Amendment Is A Special Privilege, Not A Right!

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

ALEX JONES ARCHIVE - Draconian Attack on The 2nd Amendment


Please click here to subscribe to my channel http://www.youtube.com/AKNewsflash24?feature=mhee thanks From Wall Street, gold price and US finance to conspira…



ALEX JONES ARCHIVE - Draconian Attack on The 2nd Amendment

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Chilling the First Amendment


President Obama has overseen an unprecedented legal campaign against leaks of classified information with New York Times journalist James Risen now facing possible jail for refusing to testify in the trial of ex-CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling for a leak published in Risen’s book, State of War, a topic that First Amendment attorney James Goodale discusses with Dennis J Bernstein.


By Dennis J Bernstein


Federal prosecutors are seeking to compel New York Times reporter and author James Risen to testify at the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer charged with leaking information about a flawed CIA operation to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program that Risen reported extensively on.


On July 19, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Obama administration that Risen must testify at Sterling’s trial, just the latest case of cracking down on leakers and journalists who publish classified information.


James Goodale, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, calls the administration’s campaign against leaks a threat to the ability of reporters to do their jobs. Goodale represented the New York Times in the landmark 1971 Pentagon Papers case, when the Nixon Administration tried to stop the Times from publishing the top secret documents.


Goodale is the author of a new book, Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles, and sees parallels between the Pentagon Papers case and current efforts to prosecute Sterling, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. He was interviewed by Dennis J Bernstein on Pacifica’s Flashpoints.


DB: Welcome Mr. Goodale, it’s really good to have you. I don’t think you could have picked a better time to write this book. And I understand you had some very specific reasons why you wanted to get this information out and posthaste. Could you give us the background?


JG: I wrote this book really as a clarion call to your listeners, to yourself, to journalists to wake up to President Obama and what he had in mind for the press, so that we would be prepared to deal with it.   We’re in a crisis right now, I would think. In this country, we’re all concerned about national security, and what should be done to people who leak.


And my book is about one of the greatest leaks of all time. I was prompted particularly to do the book, not only by the clarion call to Obama but also by the fact that WikiLeaks had, in effect, created a leak comparable to the Pentagon Papers. So that’s the background. We’ve got two great leak stories going on now, one that went on many years ago and we have a president who is very concerned about national security, as indeed President Nixon was, at the time of the Pentagon Papers. So there’s a lot going on that has familiar rings to it.


DB: You write … and I want to ask you straight up. You say “Obama is worse for the press and press freedom than former President Richard Nixon was.” Is that hyperbole or is that your case?


JG: Well, what I say is if President Obama goes forward, and he tries to prosecute WikiLeaks, and he tries to do it on a conspiracy theory and he succeeds, he will be worse than Nixon. Because Nixon tried to do the same thing against the New York Times, many years ago. People have forgotten what Nixon tried to do. But he tried to prosecute the Times for the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and he gave up. He failed. So I say, if President Obama could come around and do the same thing to WikiLeaks, that Nixon couldn’t do to the New York Times, he will have topped, he will have topped Nixon.


DB: How would you describe Obama’s approach to classified information and press freedom?


JG: Well, listen, I’m an Obama supporter. I’m a former member of the Rules Committee of the Democratic Party. But I have to tell you Obama’s approach to press freedom, and national security, from my viewpoint is very, very poor. He chasing reporters, he’s chasing leaks. I just don’t think he’s done a very good job about it. And I prove my case a little bit, by the case that came out Friday where he has chased James Risen, a former New York Times reporter, for not disclosing a source of a leak. [Risen] wrote about that leak … in a book and that case, which was all over the papers on Saturday morning, is a very, very bad case. It proves to me that Obama is chasing the press unnecessarily. And I could go on and on.  I’ve got a pretty good argument here because I predicted this actually, when my book came out on April 1st of this year that he would end up trying to put Risen in jail, etc., etc. …


DB: Would you just take a moment to remind people what the so-called justification … what happened here because I don’t [think] people understand the details.


JG: Alright, so on Saturday morning if you picked up the front page of the New York Times or you listened to the radio you may have heard that James Risen, a New York Times reporter, had been ordered by an appellate court to disclose his source. His source was … set out in the book Risen had written and the information in question concerned Iran’s nuclear program.


Everyone knows his source was a gentleman named Sterling and what Sterling did, apparently, was he told Risen that the Iran nuclear program was screwed up by some activities by the CIA. Risen put that in his book. He was asked to confirm that the source of his story was the aforementioned Sterling. He refused to do it. So he said he’s not gonna ever disclose it, he’s gonna go to jail. And the court of appeals in Virginia said “No, the government is right. Risen you were wrong.” And it looks like Risen is going to go to jail. That’s what that story is about.


DB: Alright. Now … put that in context, and your concern about where this is going.


JG: Well, my concern is that Obama, to put it in simple terms, is leak crazy. He has indicted six people for leaking. That’s twice as many who have been indicted in the whole history of the United States. Three was the record before that. And he is over concerned about leaks, and as a consequence he’s ending up wanting to put reporters in jail. And that’s not very good for press freedom, obviously.


DB: I guess you could say that it raises some challenges and some real concerns about where press freedom is going, and what we all have the right to do now who consider ourselves journalists.


JG: Yes, I think journalists should be very, very concerned. He, Obama, has also threatened to prosecute Julian Assange. Now Julian Assange ran the web site WikiLeaks. And he, Julian Assange, is in England. He’s holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. He is scared to come back to the United States because he thinks that Obama will indict him. Now, Julian Assange may not be an attractive figure to your listeners, but he is someone who published leaks, that’s what Risen did, he published them on his web site and he should be able to do that under the First Amendment, without fear of prosecution. But Obama seems to be going forward with that prosecution. The list goes on and on. But I just do not think that Obama is very good on press freedom.


DB: We’re speaking with James Goodale. He’s got a new book, it’s called Fighting for the Press. He was the chief counsel to the New York Times when its editors published the Pentagon Papers in 1971. You know, in 1971, and for a long time after, I know as a daily journalist, I would die for the kinds of documentation that was provided by Julian Assange.


I mean this was what journalists look for, to document, instead of just somebody just saying here or there, you get the document. You can see … what the policy was. …It almost seems like journalists have … turned on themselves, and feel like it’s their job to prosecute the whistle blowers … and the journalists like Glenn Grenwald who give them a platform. Where are we here?


JB: Well, I think that there’s a couple of points here that you made that I want to emphasize. And number one, I’ve talked about journalists who publish information. But we gotta realize that in many cases that information is what we call whistleblower information. It’s information that a particular person feels compelled to bring to the attention of the United States public. And the journalist believes that carrying that information to the public is carrying out his obligations as a journalist. That’s the first point you made, which I want to emphasize.


The second point is that the journalistic community does not seem to be as enthusiastic as I am about supporting these whistleblowers. Now, in the case of Glenn Greenwald, he is a blogger. He’s pretty much the same as Julian Assange. He’s got his own web site, so to speak. He has published the information about the NSA program, which has been in the headlines over the last several weeks.


But I think your point is, and I would agree with it, not everybody is rushing to support Glenn Greenwald. Some people have said he should be prosecuted himself. But Glenn Greenwald is just like you. You are interviewing me, Glenn Greenwald interviewed the person who leaked the information about the NSA. And I really think the journalistic community should support the Glenn Greenwalds of the world and tell President Obama that he’s not going to be able to scare journalists.


DB: How would you … somebody who represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers in ’71, how would you compare WikiLeaks … what Assange has done to what happened with the Pentagon Papers? Is there a parallel there?


JG: Well, I think that there is a parallel. … They are the two great leaks in American history. The Pentagon Papers, to refresh the recollection of your audience, was a 47-volume study of the history of the Vietnam War. And Daniel Ellsberg leaked all the volumes to the New York Timers. The New York Times didn’t publish them all, but part of it.


In the case of Julian Assange, Private First Class Manning, who had access to classified information, leaked tons and tons of material to Assange. Part of that material was published first by the New York Times, and then later it was published by Assange. So, we’re looking at two great leaks, by two well known leakers, one better known than the other, Ellsberg the great leaker, leakee, the New York Times, and Private Manning not as well known as Ellsberg. But he’s a leaker, and he leaked it to Assange. So Assange is the same as the New York Times, so forth, and so on. So, generally speaking, they are identical.


DB:  Amazing. Well, we don’t have a ton of time left, but I guess if I could appoint you as a special advisor to the President for legal affairs what would you want to tell him about his policies that have to do with going after [leakers]. … Bradley Manning should spend the rest of his life in jail and some people around Washington feel he should be executed as a traitor? What would your advice be to the President?


JG: My advice to President Obama is very simple. Dial it back. Manning is a leaker, he’s pleaded guilty to 20 years, he should go away for 20 years, but he doesn’t need to go away for life. So tell your prosecutors to dial it back. And in the case with James Risen, Mr. President, you do not want to put a New York Times reporter in jail, dial it back.


DB: This is a speculative question. You’re an attorney, but what do you think the New York Times would do if somebody put an equivalent version of the Pentagon Papers in their editor’s hands today? Would they have the courage? Would they be risking their freedom, being closed down? What do you think? What would you tell them?


JG: Well, I think that the courage is out there. I mean, Risen is a New York Times reporter after all. He courageously went forward with the leak that he published. I think, to answer your question, the New York Times would go forward with the publication of its leak. But I think what’s changed over the intervening time between the first publication of the Pentagon Papers and today, is that the screw has been tightened on the press. And that the risks to reporters particularly has increased. So, to the extent that the information that you talked about came from a source that had to be protected, I think reporters are going to be a lot more scared today than they were X years ago, particularly after the Risen case, and decision, which we talked about earlier.


DB: So you’re expecting the big chill? You’re expecting a big chill. You think this is going to chill the willingness of some reporters to … if you have three kids…


JG: Yeah, I usually stay away from the word chill, I don’t like to use it loosely. But I think it’s quite clear that what all of these actions have done is that the reporters who would be Risens, who would be getting leaks of information which the public should know about, they’re not that eager to risk their freedom and, secondly, I do not think the reporters that used to go that game, are going into it. So I will use the word chill to sum up that point to say that we’re going to get less and less reporting about things we should know about because reporters are going to be scared.


Dennis J Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net.


Tags: , , , , , ,




Consortiumnews



Chilling the First Amendment