The multiple fronts in the War on Liberty

Craig Masters
Gun ownership is under attack, from our flanks. Have no misunderstanding about immigration reform. While the Obama regime makes more pie-in-the-sky promises which sound like good ideas, their reform plans are about gun control and a national database of political viewpoints. This attack on the Second Ammendment will surprise most gun owners while attention is being drawn to the obvious frontal assault on Freedom of Speech in the mainstream press.

Led by operatives Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) the push to censor the press is now a full attack the regime thought it could disguise by the name: Free Flow of Information Act. The act passed through committee last fall and will come before the full senate. Hiding behind the talking point about shielding reporters, this is a hard-hitting attack on the freedom of the press. It was exposed as the censorship act it is by Senator Feinstein, who left no doubt about the intent to put the regime in control of the news when she stated that freedom to report the news is a “special privilege. not a right.”

The Free Flow of Information Act is everything Obama has wanted and tried to enact since 2009. The reason for the censorship of any opposition viewpoint or news that his administration decides is to protect “national security.” Feinstein testified that the “privilege” to report the news should be limited to only those persons with “experience.” She is “concerned” that a high school drop with a web site might be mistaken as a news source. She further explained that the government should license and offer special “protections” to only those “covered journalists” who are determined to be “reporters” by a government bureaucrat assigned to license news reporters. She said that those allowed these special privileges should have a record of successful contributions over the past 20 years.

In her testimony at a Judiciary Committee hearing last fall, Feinstein supported passage of the Free Flow of Information Act because, she claimed, it would “shield” and protect reporters. But then she explained that what she means by reporters are only those persons who have “experience” in reporting the news and are regularly involved in “gathering, preparation, collection, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing” of what is yet to defined as the news.

This latest front in the war on liberty and the push to rewrite the First Amendment to protect the government from unfavorable reporting was re-energized by the refusal of New York Times reporter James Risen’s refusal to turn over to the administration the names of his confidential sources. Mr. Risen has described Obama as, “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”

If this latest attack on the Constitution is successful in erasing the First Amendment, the government would then be able to define who is doing “legitimate news gathering” and who would be excluded. Feinstein did not mince words when she stated that provisions in the Free Flow of Information Act would exclude, “hate websites and other persons who are not actually engaged in the pursuit of journalism.”

Who gets to make the decision to determine the difference between a news story “hate” speech is not revealed. Congress will have to pass the bill in the interest of national security before they learn what is in the bill.

While the press is busy trying to protect itself from censorship in this frontal assault, a national database of everything from gun ownership to biometric information is forming. This new front is written deep inside the language of immigration reform.

Senate Judiciary Committee
Huffington Post, Sept 2013
Washington Times, March 2014

This entry was posted in General News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The multiple fronts in the War on Liberty

  1. Bud Darvis says:

    “Hate speech” and “hate crime” are code words for anti-white hate and intolerance. As socialist racist Attorney “General Holder” has said, by definition a white person can not be the victim of a race crime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *