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. – First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (The Bill of Rights)
Anti-American collectivists have been chipping away at the First Amendment for years.
Today it is hardly recognizable as an American right!
Today, we are living in a time where deceit, deception, fake news, and suppression of the truth by the media has become an art form and the Courts across our land have become a breeding ground of termites eating away at our Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Separation of Church and State
Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the area of “religious liberty,” where godless collectivists in our society have redefined the First Amendment to mean a “wall of separation between church and state.”
At the forefront of the religious liberty issue is an organization called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. In the name of religious liberty, Americans United (AU) has systematically fought to eliminate the acknowledgment of God in all areas where government is involved. AU has used “religious neutrality” as a vehicle to remove prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Bible and biblical moral values, the scientific evidence supporting creation, etc., from the public schools.
The First Amendment has been used to forcibly remove religion from not just our classrooms but all government institutions and to dilute the religious content of much of American life. The way liberals are interpreting the First Amendment today is that it prevents anyone who is religious from being in government. They say that violates the prohibition against church and state.
Today the so-called separation of church and state in America is also used to silence the church. When Christians speak out on issues, the hue and cry from the humanist state and media is that Christians, and all religions, are prohibited from speaking since there is a separation of church and state.
The tragic events of 9/11 has provided more fodder for the collectivist silencing of the church and actually defining Christians as enemies of the State. Alex Jones’ 2001 documentary film 9/11: The Road to Tyranny featured footage from a FEMA symposium given to firefighters and other emergency personnel in Kansas City in which it was stated that the founding fathers, Christians and homeschoolers were terrorists and should be treated with the utmost suspicion and brutality in times of national emergency.
The modern concept of separation is an argument for a total separation of religion from the state and a removal of the protections the church has enjoyed since the founding of America. Eventually it will lead to the persecution of the church and the emergence of a One World Religion. The consequence of the acceptance of this doctrine leads to the removal of religion as an influence in civil government. [Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, pg.36.]
The way the concept is used today is totally reversed from the original intent. It is not rooted in history.
Our founding fathers were trying to discourage and prevent injustice in relation to religious matters; to keep the government from creating and/or respecting any one particular religion, and to protect our religious liberty. However, that continues to slip away thanks to unconstitutional laws passed by ungodly and ignorant men and women, which are permitted, unfortunately, by a people only educated by the government and by the media.
As with all political questions, there must be open debate so the people can decide the truth. In the absence of debate, the governmental tyranny will continue. The debate of political questions is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is, however, an open attempt by the government to eliminate the First Amendment and thus conceal the truth.
Freedom of Speech
The First Amendment is being used by godless collectivists, fascists, and liberals to obstruct the freedom of speech.
Speech may be technically free, but those who say politically incorrect things are disparaged, ridiculed, called purveyors of hate, and excluded from public discourse.
Despite the fact the federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech, so-called “Hate Speech” has become a modern example of Orwellian Newspeak, used to silence critics of anything deemed politically correct.
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to offend a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or lack there of, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.
Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. These speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution.
You might not like someone’s words, but they are protected by the First Amendment. I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
Why I Left the Left
In the many countries now ruled by hate laws, it is already a federal offense to repeat the claim of New Testament “hate literature” that the Jews had Christ crucified. The State Department “Office of Global Anti-Semitism” says the New Testament claim that the Jews had Christ crucified is “classical anti-Semitism” and equates biblical Christianity with “hate”. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith—architect of hate laws worldwide (and primary ideological and statistics-gathering force behind the Office of Global Anti-Semitism) – is moving rapidly to create bias against Christians as haters, particularly of Jews and homosexuals.
Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act). S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:
Citizens Arrested for committing FREE SPEECH in Washington DC
“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”
In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.
The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.
Increasingly, the target for squelching free speech will be the Internet.
The 1st Amendment
Take a look at your ISP’s Acceptable Use Policy and you’re likely to find something similar to this:
You may not use the Service in a manner that violates any applicable local, state, federal or international law, order or regulation. Additionally, You may not use the Service to: Post, transmit, or disseminate content that is illegal, threatening, abusive, libelous, slanderous, defamatory, promotes violence, or is otherwise offensive or objectionable.
According to a recent post on the official YouTube blog, “We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.” YouTube is also planning to artificially alter its search results so that searches for “sensitive” topics on YouTube no longer return the most popular videos, but a “playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.”
So, do you think these God hating progressives might consider pro-life messages or messages calling homosexuality a sin to be “controversial religious content”? Well, yeah. They already are.
Now, I understand some will argue since Google owned YouTube is not the government, they can’t violate the first amendment or free speech. YouTube isn’t the government and can do whatever they want. Where were those with that argument when Jack Phillips, the owner of the non-government Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., declined to make a cake for the wedding celebration of two gay men in 2012? Or what about when Aaron and Melissa Klein, Christian owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Portland Oregon refused to bake a cake for a lesbian homosexual ceremony in 2013? They weren’t from the government.
What about when Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, whose company, Elane Photography, refused service for the 2007 commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple? Again, no government intervention denying these services. Tobias B. Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing lesbian Vanessa Willock in the above case said the issue was a simple one: “Whatever service you provide, you must not discriminate against customers when you engage in public commerce.”
Isn’t YouTube engaging in public commerce? Seems to me that Google and YouTube have a virtual monopoly on search results and online video, and certainly are engaging in public commerce. Using Wolff’s rationale, YouTube will be infringing on the Constitutional rights of those YouTubers being censored.
Apart from the Constitutional question, what does the censorship ability of Google and YouTube say about your democratic access to information on the Internet to all sides of an issue? If this action is allowed to stand, you will be denied that access and only hear the side of the issue that Godless liberals want you to hear.
Silencing Political Dissent
In the wake of September 11th., our government has stripped Americans of many of their Constitutional liberties, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The Patriot Act was sold to the American public as a necessary measure to protect them from terrorists. In fact, the Patriot Act has been used not against foreign terrorists, but against the American people. The definition of a terrorist has been warped to include anyone that might influence public opinion or policy contrary to the ruling elites.
In the days leading up to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, law enforcement agencies pre-emptively detained dozens of people and issued a series of search warrants aimed at groups believed to be organizing demonstrations.
Amy Goodman Arrested at RNC
No laws were being broken, only American citizens gathering in the privacy of their homes. The sheriff’s department executed warrants for multiple homes in Minneapolis and two in St. Paul, detaining more than 50 people and arresting 4, including several journalists. The officers hauled off laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the houses.
As the Republican Convention convened, police arrested an AP photographer as well as Democracy Now host Amy Goodman simply for documenting protests in downtown St. Paul. Associated Press photographer Matt Rourke was arrested on a gross misdemeanor riot charge simply for taking pictures of a protest. “Covering news is a constitutionally protected activity, and covering a riot is part of that coverage,” AP assistant chief of bureau in Washington David Ake said. “Photographers should not be detained for covering breaking news.” Democracy Now host Amy Goodman was arrested after she complained about the assault and arrest of her colleagues, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, arrested on suspicion of rioting.
Meanwhile, back at the Xcel Center Republican National Convention site, as Ron Paul Delegates were taking a picture in front of the model White House inside the Convention Center, they were surrounded by Secret Service which proceeded to search their bags and took any and everything related to Ron Paul including signs, buttons, videos, slim jims, cards, even books. Alternate Delegate Dennis Rothacker from Florida said “We were done taking the picture when Secret Service started walking into the room and surrounded us. There were about 30 of them. When they searched my bags they took my Ron Paul sign and turned a deaf ear to my complaints, they just walked away.” Delegate Ron Warner from Fairbanks Alaska added that as he was walking into the convention center with about 15 Revolution Manifesto books, 20 DVD’s for Delegates, 20 Ron Paul buttons and a handful of other things, when he was stopped by security which confiscated all the materials.
Another example of the fake mainstream media distorting reality is when we’re told to cough up more money for a gallon of gasoline because of “supply and demand” or because the price of a barrel of oil has been increased by Arab oil producers. We’re not told how the Federal Reserve’s devaluation of the dollar is impacting what you pay for that gallon of gas.
Free Speech Zones
Reminiscent of the fascist tactics used against anti-war protestors of the 1960’s, the tyrannical state and federal police forces today, empowered by the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government, have refined their tactics and advanced their oppression of free speech with scientific precision.
Free speech zones are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are “Orwellian”, and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries.
LGBTQ Dance Freakout Protest – Beware: Strong Language
Another development in recent years to stifle freedom of speech is the safe space, for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. The term safe space has been extended to refer to a space for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to celebrate their depravity without question, typically on a university campus.
Much of the erosion of the First Amendment has not been achieved in Congress, rather collectivists and liberals have used the activist courts to deny Americans of their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. There are hundreds of examples where the courts and local school boards routinely stifle free speech.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Americans voices have also been stifled in another important area: the right to life as claimed in our Declaration of Independence…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Apparently, since socialists have deemed faith in a Creator obsolete, it would only follow that the unalienable rights granted by that irrelevant Creator would also be null and void.
In 1994, The Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, making blocking a clinic a federal offense. “The scope of FACE is so broad that it makes no distinction between violent and non-violent protesters, and, simply because they are pro-life, subjects them to the same harsh penalties,” stated Elizabeth Law, director of government relations for the Family Research Council. The law limits First Amendment rights based on political beliefs. Praying, sidewalk counseling, picketing– any activity construed as blocking clinic sidewalks or driveways– is strictly prohibited for anyone with a pro-life viewpoint. In theory, this legislation prevents acts of violence at abortion clinics, but in actuality, it hinders free speech rights for a single group of people — pro-lifers.
In April, 1998, a U.S. District Court held Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action League liable for damaging the ability of abortion clinics to conduct business over the past 15 years. The ruling in NOW v. Scheidler, awarded $255,000 in damages to abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin and effectively punishes pro-life organizations for persuading women not to have abortions. It also classifies some pro-life speech as organized crime. (Washington Watch, May 1998)
The First Amendment Turned Upside Down
With most of our country’s founding documents redefined and made invalid, what’s next for the conspirators to achieve is to protect the criminals that have brought these injustices upon the American people.
What the media represents as fact is what the “rich behind the scenes” powerbrokers seeking world control want us to hear. They focus on the problems at the bottom of the social ladder and not what our government officials and corporate executives are doing to enrich themselves behind closed doors.
While John McCain and Russell Feingold spoke about the need for campaign reform, they concealed the provisions designed to squelch the voices of ordinary American citizens.
The U.S. Congress rejected the settlement with the tobacco industry that was an attempt to address youth smoking and instead proposed to impose a HALF A TRILLION dollars in new taxes and to create 17 new bureaucracies to control another American industry. That effort, too, was defeated in Congress as the McCain Bill became bloated with extravagant spending that had nothing to do with smoking.
In May, 1999, CBS threatened to sue the American Family Association because they had the audacity to put on their web site audio clips of comments made by “shock jock” Howard Stern. It was after the tragic shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado that Stern had the following to say:
“There were some really good-looking girls running out with their hands over their heads. Did (the suspects) try to have sex with any of the good-looking girls? They didn’t even do that? At least if you’re going to kill yourself and kill all the kids, why wouldn’t you have some sex? If I was going to kill some people I would take ’em out with some sex.”
Apparently CBS is livid that the AFA would allow Americans to hear in Howard Stern’s own voice – the one minute 47 second clip. Imagine what the parents of the children murdered in Colorado must think when they hear Stern’s comments.
I’m not suggesting that Howard Stern’s freedom of speech should be silenced. But, if he is going to be afforded the right to free speech, so should anyone who opposes him. To allow the high dollar lawyers for CBS to squelch opposition to the smut Howard Stern broadcasts on the public airwaves is un-American and should not be tolerated in a free society. Let the marketplace decide what they want to hear. Let the American public hear for themselves both sides of the debate.