Afterthought: Freedom Of The Press

[Flanders]

In my mind the two linked articles are connected. The first by Deborah C. Tyler discusses Rights.

September 15, 2013
Thinking about Rights and Claims
By Deborah C. Tyler

Articles: Thinking about Rights and Claims

The second piece by Stella Morabito looks at tyranny.

September 15, 2013
The Dynamics of Tyranny
By Stella Morabito

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_dynamics_of_tyranny.html

NOTE: Morabito’s article is built around the novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. I confess that I am not familiar with it.

Those who read my threads know that I usually elaborate on excerpts. I cannot elaborate on perfection; so today I will alter my format and go right to my comments.

Everything said by Deborah C. Tyler and Stella Morabito confirms my belief that the government is determined to abolish freedom of speech on the Internet in order to reinforce politically correct speech. From the government’s perspective there is no point in enforcing politically correct speech in everyday life when freedom of speech dominates the Internet.

Here’s my take on journalism’s part in eliminating Rights along with imposing tyranny.

Television journalists defending their freedom of the press expect Americans to man the barricades on behalf of media incomes; substantial tax dollar incomes in the television industry.

I find it annoying as all hell that press barons expect the American people to fight for freedom of the press, while not one of them will lift a finger to defend freedom of speech on the Internet. Print press is not much better even though they share First Amendment protection along with freedom of speech. Notice which one of the two comes first:

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.

I always had the feeling the Founding Fathers threw the press in there as an afterthought. I truly believe that the Founders would not have included the press had the Internet been around at the end of the War for Independence. Also, there is every reason to believe that the Founders would not have protected the press had they known it would become an instrument of tyrannical, confiscatory, government.

Take a good look at the things the press has been advocating for decades and you’ll see that freedom of the press, as it is practiced today, is detrimental to everything that protects liberty for all —— property Rights, religious freedom, the Right to work for one’s self, the Right to spend your money as you see fit, the Right to protect your children from being brainwashed. In short: The Right to make choices. Why do those things provide better government than paternalism? The best of many answers to the question can be found in Eric Hoffer’s quotation following my signature.

 

[Flanders]

Jack Cashill’s column juxtaposes the rise of Barack Taqiyya and Vladimir Putin starting in their youths. Interestingly, the two are now working together against America. Note that both hate American Exceptionalism. That’s what the open mic slipup was all about?

Cashill’s piece would be a chapter in any respectable guidebook to judging Taqiyya the Liar regardless of Putin. This excerpt touches lightly on the part played by the media:

For the next eighteen years, the resourceful Putin finessed his way through the occasionally lethal minefield of Russian politics. Obama meanwhile was wafted aloft by his own breezy rhetoric and the overheated passions of his deluded followers, including, unfortunately, most of the mainstream media.

The media’s biggest sin was turning community organizing into an honorable calling when, in fact, the media elected the first full-blown child of the parasite class. My view is that without the media Barack Taqiyya would still be hustling the suckers back in Chicago. Had he not gone on to greater things, I’m certain he would have donned the collar à la Reverend Wright so he could spew his hatreds from his own pulpit without having to pretend he loves this country.

Anyway, here’s the link to an informative interpretation of the Left’s savior:

September 16, 2013
The Impostor President Gets Caught
By Jack Cashill

Articles: The Impostor President Gets Caught

 

[Katzndogz]

The open mic slip up was obama's slip up. Russia didn't ask for anything and didn't collude with obama.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Flanders:
I hold that the Government is the People.
As long as we the people live in fear of censoring each other, even slamming other opposing views for fear they discredit or slam our views, etc.
This empowers the Government to step in and play the same games with bigger weapons of collective resources and influence.

The key to freedom is for US we the people to quit censoring ourselves and each other.

By reaching across and including each other, it is harder to come in and
"play one side's fears against the other"
people will not go along with government, if we no longer fear we need to
"side with the bigger bully"
in order to fight "the other bullies"

John Cusack and his colleagues are some who are breaking ranks with politics as usual.
They started a Freedom of the Press Foundation to support media watch groups.

But I call out to push one step further.
And NOT separate at all into this group vs. that one
the people vs. the big bad government

but see it as people needing to reach out and include other people
so there is no more divisive fear to manipulate this group or another to attack or defend.

we need to quit censoring ourselves by cutting out whatever group we "blame"
when we share responsibility for fixing problems
these walls we build come down

so that is the first step to freeing the press
is to remove our own blinders and biases
adn start addressing the big picture
where all the people make up the government
and we are responsible for fixing whatever got messed up!

Thanks for posting
the media website is something like
http://www.pressfreedomfoundation.org

If that's not right, it's close. I will see if I can get usmessageboard linked
on as a resource to start this campaign of stopping media bias and
self-censorship by ending the habit of dividing and conquering by party lines.

If we don't address this first, how can we expect our media and govt to follow???

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. another major factor in censorship and media/political bias
is legal accountability

People can't tell the truth about what really happened or went wrong
as long as the legal liability is hanging over our heads.

So this issue of the Fifth Amendment really depends on practicing some
system of resolving conflicts where people really do have freedom to comply
with corrections and restitution WILLFULLY not forced on them against free will.

or else we really don't have First Amendment rights if we'd incriminate ourselves.

That's why I push for mediation, conflicts resolution, and CONSENSUS on issues.
So people can have free speech without fear of incrimination, judgment or punishment.

EX: In cases where 3 people commit a fatal crime, and two blame the other for the actual killing, this can go in circles legally where if no one person can be proven guilty, the case can go unresolved. But if we had some kind of process that focused on restitution for the crime, then all 3 people guilty of co-conspiring could still settle out and agree to serve restitution together as a group, without ever having to admit who did what if that is between them and God. The case can still be settled instead of wasting years and taxpayers money going nowhere in our legal system as it is now.

Our politicians are just as bad, where the parties can only come out and say X Y Z if it serves them politically while taking the Fifth on A B C getting shuffled aside while the other side takes those issues up etc. But neither will work with the other because it costs them points.

So again we shoot ourselves in the foot with this Fifth Amendment stuff, that ultimately costs us our First Amendment rights to free speech press and right to petition.

We'd have to change the whole system of how we redress grievances,
and I do believe that is where our Constitutional system of due process is heading....

 

[Flanders]

The open mic slip up was obama's slip up. Russia didn't ask for anything and didn't collude with obama.

To Katzndogz: If that is true what was Taqiyya talking about?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE&feature=player_detailpage]Obama open mic slip: 'After my election I have more flexibility' - YouTube[/ame]​

Letting the public hear what he said was a major slip-up. Put it in perspective by looking at how Putin and the UN are the beneficiaries in Syria. These excerpts from Putin’s NYT op-ed show there is not a whiff of difference between Taqiyya’s and Putin’s worldview:

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

There is no doubt Democrats have been betraying this country to “. . . the stability of international relations. . . ” since 1945. Putin, along with Barack Taqiyya & Company, are committed to empowering the United Nations even further.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations,

Not true. Barack Taqiyya is in complete accord with Putin, while every American with a ounce of common sense wants the US out of the UN.

Clarification: The United Nations succeeded the League of Nations. When Wilson tried to get the US into the League —— a mere six years after the XVII Amendment in 1913 —— there were enough senators still loyal to this country to keep the US out of the League. By 1945 the Senate as a body betrayed this country by establishing the United Nations.

which collapsed because it lacked real leverage.

Leverage is the goal. Taqiyya, and John Kerry, are working to give Putin and the United Nations what they want even if it means selling this country down the river.

Incidentally, leverage is a synonym for taxing authority over the American people. Democrats began working on that one soon after the UN opened up shop.

This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

Here again, Putin and Taqiyya are in agreement. The problem is that Security Council authorization only applies to the USA. To be more price Putin calls the shots with Russia’s veto. Never forget all of the brutality the Soviet Union inflicted on the world after the United Nations was in business.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria.

That one is a joke. Both Putin and Taqiyya advocate democracy for the same reason:

Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

Putin calls it international law. Political reality forces Barack Taqiyya & John Kerry to call it international norms. The result is the same. A global government administered by the United Nations.

Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy . . .

Democracy is the problem Putin & Taqiyya would impose on the world. Note that neither man ever said a good word about individual liberties guarantied under a form of limited government.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you.

That’s a new version of the old Leftist slogan “If everybody has the bomb nobody will use it.” I see no evidence that Taqiyya disagrees.

Parenthetically, Putin’s hero, Stalin, wasn’t talking that way when American traitors helped him get the bomb. I wonder what Taqiyya would say about that.

We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

Now that’s chutzpah in light of the New START treaty ratified on Taqiyya’s watch.

The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

Alternative my ass. Giving the United Nations control has been the goal from the start. I would go so far as to say Putin’s old KGB pals and the CIA collaborated on a ridiculous scheme that blew up in Taqiyya’s face forcing Putin to bail him out without looking too obvious. The whole goddamned Syrian thing has been a political absurdity from the start.

I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

Putin and Taqiyya are of one mind on American Exceptionalism. Putin opposes it outright. Taqiyya the Liar has to be circumspect. That’s why no American should believe anything he says. Look at his actions don’t listen to his words. This is the truth:

President Obama rejects American exceptionalism in a manner never before seen in an American commander in chief.

XXXXX​

During a European trip last year, President Obama was asked about his view of American influence in the world. “I believe in American exceptionalism,” he said, “just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Translation: We all cling to our parochial mythologies. No American president ever disowned so openly the singular achievement of the United States, namely, to arrange its national life so that its extraordinary power—military, political, and economic—would promote democratic ideals and institutions.

Two Cheers for American Exceptionalism
By Joseph Loconte Friday, March 5, 2010

Two Cheers for American Exceptionalism ? The American Magazine

There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.

God help them all after they answer to Putin’s and Taqiyya’s one government world.

We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Taqiyya has been known to say “God bless America.” Two Commies citing God is bit much.