Assault on the First Amendment

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 Bill of Rights

Ten Commandments tablet located at the
Texas Capitol Building in Austin, Texas.
[AP Photo by Larry Kolvoord]

Socialists in America 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, and suppression of the truth 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.

Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the area of "religious liberty," where some have reinterpreted 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 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 way the concept is used today is totally reversed from the original intent. It is not rooted in history. The modern concept of separation is an argument for a total separation of religion from the state. 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.]

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 Amenement and thus conceal the truth.

The First Amendment is being used by godless socialists and liberals to obstruct the freedom of speech.

Speech may be technically free, but those who say politically incorrect things are ridiculed, called purveyors of hate, and excluded from public discourse.

The Constitution divides the National Government into three branches-Legislative, Executive and Judicial. This separation of powers' was obviously not instituted with the idea that it would promote governmental efficiency. It was, on the contrary, looked to as a bulwark against tyranny. For if governmental power is fractionalized, if a given policy can be implemented only by a combination of legislative enactment, judicial application, and executive implementation, no man or group of men will be able to impose its unchecked will.

James Madison wrote, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - The Federalist, No. 47, pp. 373-374 (Hamilton ed. 1880).

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.

Much of the erosion of the First Amendment has not been achieved in Congress, rather socialists 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.
Just a few are documented here

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)

Protecting the Criminals

With most of our country's founding documents redefined and made invalid, what's next for the conspirators to achieve is to protect those that have brought these injustices upon the American people.

On November 16, 2004, the U.S. Government sued Bill Benson to obtain an injunction to prohibit him from telling people that the 16th Amendment was not in fact ratified. Rather than deciding upon the facts of the case, the court instead refused to allow Bill to present facts of the case, thus nullifying his First Amendment right to free speech and Fifth and Fourteenth Ameendment right to the due process of law.

The court struck all of Bill’s facts from the record as irrelevant, and failed to address any of his other questions. On January 10, 2008, the court granted the government’s requested injunction. As of now, then, the government may prosecute you for lying and prevent you from presenting a defense. As of now, speaking about a political question is against the law. As of now, there is no due process of law. As of now, there is no First Amendment right to speak or to petition the government for redress of grievance. As of now, the words of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison are like the words of the United States Constitution; mere words that have no meaning.

To ensure the silence of Americans, the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

Exposing Corporate America

Robert Lane is learning the price of exposing the dark secrets of corporate America. He posted on his web site, BlueOvalNews.com, documents about forthcoming Ford automobiles. The problem was the documents were not just outlining features of future products, but rather were detailing safety problems with the automobiles. The documents were obtained from Ford employees who wanted the truth about certain Ford products to be revealed, according to Lane.

Lane was accused of innappropriate use of the Ford logo and internal company documents and was sued by the Big Three auto makers. "The arguments Ford made today are that these were internal documents... and as a matter of law should not be published," said Ford spokesman Jim Cain. "It's not the fact that he was writing about Ford secrets, per se," Cain said. "We want him to stop breaking the law."

There seems to me to be a double standard here. Had the documents been from politically incorrect tobacco companies, Lane would be heralded a "hero" for bringing to the publics attention important information about public health. But, since the automobile industry is not currently on the governments "hit list" of politically incorrectness, Lane was branded a criminal.

Within days, Lane had been partially disarmed... the web site was disabled. So much for your right to know.

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason.

One purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the right of all citizens to freely speak their mind. Today, we see the First Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution being chipped away at by liberals and socialists in our society. They don't want you to know the truth ... unless it's "their truth."

The Fourth Estate

Spin: The Illusion Of Media

The once great protector and defender of the First Amendment, the press, is now being transformed into an oppressor of free speech. Over the past few decades we have witnessed the conglomeration of a once free press dedicated to telling the truth to the American public into a serpentine corporate homogeny where news is manufactured as a consumer commodity to be sold and controlled by the greed of corporate executives and stockholders.

Today, the mainstream corporate media has become the mouthpiece of a emerging socialist government and possesses an explicit capacity of advocacy and ability to frame political issues. And their agenda is to advance the New World Order message.

"Democracy without honest information creates the illusion of popular consent, while enhancing the power of the state and the privileged interests protected by it. Democracy without accountability creates the illusion of popular control, while offering ordinary Americans only cheap tickets to the balcony. Too far away to see that the public stage has become just a reality TV set." - Bill Moyers

As more Americans are dumbed-down by the onslaught of corporate driven messages disguised as "truth," they are being manipulated by the enemies of freedom and public opinion is swayed in favor of their deceitful agenda. When a dissenting voice is raised, unreported facts disclosed, or criticism is leveled, the press is quick to squelch that voice, fact, or criticism.

While there are numerous examples I could cite, one I've witnessed firsthand was the media manipulation of the 2008 Presidential campaign. How many Americans do you believe would be favorable to a message of freedom, sound money, non-interventionism, and free markets? Do you think Americans would support a candidate that believed in protecting our Constitution and getting rid of those things in our society that are unconstitutional? We've all heard the mantra of "change" spewed forth from nearly all the candidates, but how many of us know what that "change" entails?

Sadly, the word "change" is a euphemism for "more of the same."

When a candidate talked about real change, they were marginalized by the corporate mainstream media and their message all-but censored from public discourse. The candidate I'm referring to is Ron Paul, and from the very beginnings of his campaign, the mainstream media had blacklisted his message of change. It simply was not the status quo message promoted by corporate America and Socialist government. His fellow candidates publicly laughed at his Constitutional message and he was blocked from sharing his message on the public airwaves. His primary results were either under-reported or not reported at all. The time he was given in the primary debates was only a fraction that given the corporate hand-picked candidates. As a result, few Americans even knew that he was a candidate for President of the United States, and fewer were given the priviledge of hearing what his platform was.

I believe if he had been given a fair opportunity to share his vision with the American people, there would be little doubt who our next President of the United States would be. I believe the grassroot American is a decent person that believes in the patriotic vision our Founders gave us in the Constitution. However, that's not the same vision held by the New World Order and their propagandists were obliged to shape public opinion to their mind-numbed interpretation of change.

In another example from 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.

Whatever Happened to Freedom of the Press?

By Vic Bilson
Jeremiah Project