DICK Durbin Not Sure If Bloggers Deserve Constitutional Protection

DICK Durbin Not Sure If Bloggers Deserve Constitutional Protection

On the May 26 broadcast of the Sunday show, Durbin told host Chris Wallace that he wasn't sure if bloggers or "someone who is Tweeting" should be given protections under a media shield law.

DICK "guards at Gitmo same as Gestapo" Durbin the Turban, doesn't know if bloggers and people using Twitter have the right of free speech? The 1st Amendment is very specific on this issue DICK: "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."

Perhaps DICK should enroll in some remedial reading classes or maybe a basic course in understanding the English language would be in order.

IIRC the old Soviet Union, the USSR, made it illegal to speak out against the ruling class. We all know where that wound up. You think it can't happen here?

It already is.

FBI Supressing (Intimidating) Journalists?

Just got a message the #2 man at the EffaBeeEye called investigative journalist Susan Katz Keating (my BFF) at her home and told her to stop investigating the Petraeous/Broadwell/Kelly/Allen connection to Benghazi where 4 Americans were left to die in the sands of North Africa.

Susan Katz Keating is an investigative journalist specializing in national security. A former Washington Times reporter, she is the author of Prisoners of Hope: Exploiting the POW/MIA Myth in America (Random House), and three books for young readers. A People magazine correspondent, she covers high profile stories, including the Virginia Tech and Ft. Hood shootings, and the SEAL assault on Osama bin Laden. Her work has appeared in Readers Digest, The New York Times, Air&Space, American Legion, VFW, Soldier of Fortune, and other publications. She has been cited in the New Yorker, the Wall Street Journal, Salon, and other journals. She is a founding trustee for the National Museum of Americans in Wartime, and serves on the board for Cooking With the Troops. She briefly was in the U.S. Women's Army Corps, where she earned her Expert rating on the M-16 rifle. She was editor of the Dixon Tribune newspaper in California. She was a director of the Travis AFB Museum, and served as restoration crew chief on a B-52. She belongs to the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, and serves on the Draft Board. She attended the University of California at Davis. She lives in Virginia.

Sunday Open Thread: Bill of Rights Edition

Sunday Open Thread: Bill of Rights Edition

Today, in 1789, George Washington sent the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) to the states for ratification.

Daily Caller Buys keitholbermann dot com

and Olbermann is furious.


Keith Olbermann threatens legal action against The Daily Caller via Twitter

Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, has responded to the news that The Daily Caller has acquired the domain, KeithOlbermann.com.

In a tweet posted at 10:46 AM, the aging cable anchor wrote, “Regarding @TheDailyCaller and Keitholbermann.com: I hope whoever sold it to them got CASH.”

Several minutes later, an apparently still-reeling Olbermann clarified his meaning: “Also regarding @TheDailyCaller and KeithOlbermann.com – the law’s pretty clear on this, so, nice waste of money, Tuckie. #p2 #tcot.”

The implication is that MSNBC, or Keith Olbermann personally, will pursue legal action to stop the dissemination of news and information on The Daily Caller.

Not so fast, responded Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller. “Some might step back and allow Mr. Olbermann to drain his bladder on the first amendment – indeed, on the Bill of Rights itself,” said Carlson. “Not us. No, by God, not us.”

Continue to check this space for updates on this developing story. And in the meantime, Tucker Carlson may be reached at his personal email address, keith@keitholbermann.com.

Read more:

Meet Michael Copps, He Wants To Regulate Your Speech

Meet the FCC commissioner who wants to control the news

By Mike Riggs - The Daily Caller Published: 12:53 AM 12/08/2010 Updated: 6:58 AM 12/08/2010

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission created a rule requiring broadcasters to cover issues that the government deemed important, and to do so in a way that the government found “honest, equitable and balanced.” If a broadcaster did not agree to abide by this rule, the FCC reserved the right to revoke the station’s broadcasting license. This rule was called the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC abandoned it in 1987. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a socially conservative Democrat appointed to the FCC in 2001, would like to bring it back.

Copps has a long history of advocating for government control of media, dating to the beginning of his tenure. But it wasn’t until last week, after Copps spoke to the BBC and an audience at Columbia University, that Congress decided to look into the commissioner’s philosophy against private media companies.

“We are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need to have in order to make intelligent decisions about the future direction of their country,” Copps told the BBC. Media outlets are not “producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue.”
[Emphasis added]

Copps went on to criticize his Republican colleagues at the FCC, who he claims, “eviscerated just about every public interest responsibility that generations of reformers had fought for and won in radio and TV.” In other words, the FCC folded the Fairness Doctrine in the 80s when it should have been cooking up legal justification for applying it more widely.

Republican Rep. Joe Barton got wind of Copps’ remarks and sent him a letter in which he asked if Copps meant “to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume.” While Copps has not publicly answered Barton’s query, it’s no secret what he’d say: Hell yes

Read more:

There's A Little Bug Inside Me, Too

Well, actually its a stent that was put in one year ago, but I digress.

Jay Rockefeller (Asshat-WVA), thinks the reason Americans are so confused and scared is because FoxNews and MSNBC are broadcasting news 24/7/365 and the only way to return the universe to harmony and balance is to make them go away. H'mm. An elected official, who supposedly took an oath to defend the Constiutution, (all of it, not just the parts he likes), wants to stop publicly owned companies from conducting legal and Constitutionally protected business.

Does anyone else find this particularly disturbing or am I just being my normal, cynical paranoid self?

West Virginia's Sen. Jay Rockefeller wishes the Bill of Rights didn't include the first one -- If his brief appearance during a hearing on retransmission yesterday is any indication, the coal dust is starting to cloud Sen. Jay Rockefeller's mind. “We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming,” Rockefeller said during a subcommittee meeting led by Sen. John Kerry. "There’s a little bug inside of me which wants the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Good-bye.’ It’d be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress and to the American people to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly in their future."

Free Speech For Liberals

WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL HIGHLIGHTS

Democrats: Free speech for me, not for thee
Examiner Editorial
"The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats' union masters."

DISCLOSE Act attacks freedom of speech
Ken Klukowski, Examiner OpEd
"At least BCRA applied to unions. It was unconstitutional, but at least it went after both sides. DISCLOSE, by contrast, mostly criminalizes speech from conservative groups, while leaving liberals unfettered."

White House, Google violate lobbying pledge
Timothy P. Carney, Examiner Columnist
"Maybe a millionaire who spends his days leaning on policymakers to benefit his company isn't a lobbyist if he calls himself an 'Internet evangelist.'"

A role for the people in judicial selections
William J. Watkins Jr., OpEd Contributor
"The three nominees (it could be two or one depending on the political climate) would be listed on the ballot for the next regularly scheduled federal election (every two years), and the people would vote for one of the nominees to serve on the Supreme Court."

DISCLOSE-HR 5175

"The proposals in the ‘DISCLOSE Act’ (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) amount to nothing more than political posturing…This bill would create another bureaucratic layer of political speech regulation, which would punish small business owners and grassroots groups who lack the resources to comply with such onerous provisions.” - Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics Chairman and Former FEC Commissioner, 2000-2005

On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

The DISCLOSE Act was marked up on Thursday, May 20, 2010, and may come to the floor later this week after rumors that the Democrats have reached an agreement with certain key groups. This is not meant to be an extensive analysis – which will be provided in the Legislative Bulletin once the bill comes to the floor – but rather to highlight some of the most egregious provisions of the bill.

Partisan ploy to get Democrats elected to Congress. The bill, “coincidentally” sponsored by the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to Congress, re-writes campaign finance laws in favor of Democrats right before elections. It was crafted behind closed doors with no input from Republican members of the House Administration Committee. The bill was designed by Democrats to silence their political opponents.

Creates a special, narrow carve-out for specific organizations intended to sway votes toward passage of the bill. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the Humane Society, and possibly a very small number of other groups, are reportedly covered in a last minute deal that creates an exemption from the financial disclosure requirements in the bill. This carve out does nothing to protect the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who want to engage in the political process but will instead be deterred by this bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, “Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats ‘good grades’ on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else's problem.” The exemption is intended to make it easier for a bad bill to get the votes it needs to pass.

Favors unions over corporations. Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. See the RSC Policy Paper on Citizens United for more details. DISCLOSE makes current law much more restrictive and bans independent expenditures on activity by American corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership. However, similar restrictions are not included for unions with foreign members or non-citizen members. As eight former Federal Election Commissioners stated in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “… Disclose does not ban foreign speech but speech by American citizen shareholders of U.S. companies that have some element of foreign ownership, even when those foreigners have no control over the decisions made by the Americans who run the company.” Additionally, the new threshold for reporting ($600 in donations for independent expenditures) will have little effect on unions whose members’ annual dues average much lower than $600. This would preclude unions from having to report. The bill also prohibits independent expenditures or disbursing funds for electioneering communications by anyone with a government contract greater than $7 million. (Originally, the threshold was $50,000, which was changed in mark-up.) This does not apply to unions in collective bargaining agreements with the government.

Threatens organizations with lawsuits for non-compliance. The bill becomes effective 30 days after enactment, giving the Federal Election Commission no time to craft regulations relating to the implementation of the bill, which will certainly be complicated, and not to mention expensive, to execute. Organizations would have to operate without any guidance from the FEC and risk possible lawsuits.

Onerous disclosure and reporting requirements will deter citizen engagement. The bill includes requirements that every incorporated entity engaged in independent campaign activity must list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The bill also requires CEOs of organizations to appear in the ads, and state their name and their organization two times. Additionally, the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad (and top two for radio), and if there is a top “significant” funder, he or she must identify himself or herself, his or her title, and state the name of the organization three times in the ad. These tedious and onerous requirements will have the effect of deterring organizations from getting involved in elections (and potentially take up most of the ad time).

Citizens United was a triumph in defense of the First Amendment right to free speech and a reaffirmation of the rights of businesses, unions, and citizens’ associations to engage in political communications. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite, and the business community knows it. This bill is an attack on the ability of non-party organizations to engage in the political realm during an election year.

More Cynicism and Paranoia

From the original paranoid cynic.

So, how do you begin to restrict the speech of the general population without actually attracting attention to what you're doing? You hire people to pubicly promote an issue which is so despicable and tasteless, it will cause normal people to DEMAND that the government immediately put a stop to it.
"You must shut thse people up."
"This is just so ugly and vile and despicable, how can you let this behavior continue?"
"I demand that you immediately make it illegal to say ugly things in public."

So, you manage to convince the government to shut the people up. The government makes it illegal to say ugly things in public. YOUR definition of ugly. So now we have a law that prohibits ugly stuff in public. Good.??? NOT!!!!

What will happen when you decide that you have a message to promote and someone decides YOUR message is ugly? You'll get locked up.

Where does it stop? It won't. Don't get sucked into this.

You have the right to offend anyone you choose. You do not have the right to not be offended.

3rd District Repubican Candidate Issues Statement On WBC

Coby W. Dillard Denounces Westboro Ba'athist Church during Protests in Hampton Roads and Richmond


Contact:
Coby Dillard for Congress
info@cobydillard.com

Norfolk, VA—Congressional candidate Coby Dillard made the following statement regarding scheduled protests by Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) in Hampton Roads and Richmond this week:

“Individuals and organizations that invoke the name of God for their own divisive purposes are neither servants of God nor the people they purport to lead. WBC and its founder, Fred Phelps, have a long history of despicable and disrespectful actions toward fallen service members, Jews, and homosexuals.

“All religions, in their own way, offer a message of love and respect for believers and non-believers alike. They are lessons in the redemption of the human spirit, and not meant to be used as tools of hatred and coercion.

“While the First Amendment guarantees WBC’s right to defile the Christian religion for publicity, it also guarantees the right of others to condemn them. I offer my strongest possible condemnation of WBC, as well as its founder, members and supporters. I encourage all elected officials and candidates in Hampton Roads and Richmond, as well as their constituents, to do the same.”

A principled urban conservative, Coby W. Dillard is running for the Republican nomination to represent the people of Virginia’s 3rd congressional district. For more information, please visit www.cobydillard.com.

Justice Thomas On CU v FEC Decision

So it would appear that the original law dates back to the early 1900's with a Democrat Senator from Dixie trying to keep the black man in his place and silence the mean old Republican corporations.

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

Foreign Influence in American Elections

Zero is suddenly concerned about "foreign influence" in American elections. Maybe someone should investigate Jodie Evans and track all the money she "bundled" during the Presidential campaign. (Someone should investigate code pink, period.)

The louder the dhimmis holler about something, the more likely it is that they are guilty of doing that very thing.

Background here, here, and here.

Statement From Dan Lungren, R-Calif on CU vs FEC

Video of Justice Alito during the SOTU disagreeing with The Chosen One.

WASHINGTON – Today, the Committee on House Administration’s Ranking Republican Dan Lungren, R-Calif., issued the following statement on the President’s false assumption that the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will open the floodgates for foreign spending in U.S. elections:

“Justice Alito is correct. The assumption that the Court’s recent decision will open the floodgates for foreign spending in U.S. elections is simply not true. Since the Court’s decision to overturn unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, there has been a substantial amount of misinformation disseminated by Democrats in an attempt to scare the American electorate into supporting their attempts to stifle political speech.

“It’s time to set the record straight. The Court’s decision did not – in any way, shape or form – impact existing rules and regulations that specifically prohibit foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to election activity. The legal prohibitions on foreign involvement in U.S. elections are broad, clear and completely intact.

“Instead of spreading misinformation in the hopes of silencing political free speech, Democrats should focus on solving the real problems plaguing American families.”

Hypocrisy Squared

I don't always agree with the Newt, but he's dead right on this one.

Can We Trust the American People Mr. President? Yes, We Can.

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, President Obama used his weekly radio address last week to pledge to work with Congress to reverse the decision and declared: "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.
The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections" (emphasis added).

This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people. This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers' pie. But even more glaring than the hypocrisy is the obvious contempt that supporters of bureaucratic campaign finance have for the American people.

Ultimately, the question comes down to one of trust. Can we trust the people, and not the government, to determine our political future?

The answer, Mr. President, is a familiar one:

"Yes we can."

Heritage Foundation on SCOTUS Decision

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment
January 22, 2010 By Amanda J. Reinecker

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and appropriately struck down government prohibitions on many sorts of privately-funded political advertising. In doing so, Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, the court "upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate."

The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated as a question about campaign finance laws and whether they apply to an unflattering film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton. After the government argued that campaign finance laws could even lead to bans on books, the Court ordered a rare re-argument to address the broader constitutionality of limiting corporations' independent spending during federal election campaigns.

It was a question of "ancient First Amendment principles," the Court stated in its majority opinion. It is no coincidence that the rights to free speech and assembly are among the first mentioned in our Bill of Rights -- our Founders recognized that these rights are essential to the preservation of a free government.

"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold officials accountable to the people," Spakovsky argues. But the right to free speech is not limited to individual persons, he argues. For-profit and non-profit organizations are greatly "affected, damaged, or even lost" by the laws Congress passes, so there is "no rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent political activity."

Those who criticize the Court's 5-4 decision fail to recognize a key component about this critical First Principle: free speech "is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers," as Justice Scalia explained in a concurring opinion. It is a right that applies to all. To deny it to would be an obfuscation of the written law and a violation of a fundamental right.

Corporations:Creations of the State, Book Banning, and Other Stupid Things

The NY Times says corporations are creations of the state and not entitled to certain 1st Amendment rights when their free speech addresses issues or politics.

Justice Department lawyers stood in the Supreme Court and said, out loud,
that the government has the right to ban a book if it contains even one reference to a candidate for elected office, no matter the context.

The Banking Queen, Bwaney Fwank, did his best rightously indignate impersonation of Gobbels and said democracy is now being ruled by greedy, evil corporations. Now he wants to bypass the Constitution and impose restrictions by using corporate law. He says that would take care of that pesky 1st Amendment.

Charles "Chuckie-boy" Schumer says it's a sad day for democracy.

Do these statements strike anyone else as slightly fascist or is it just me?

Thank goodness a majority of the SCOTUS thinks this mindset is just mildly anti-American and granted corporations the right to spend lawfully obtained funds to promote an issue or become an issues advocate.

We the have the right as private citizens, at least for now, to agree or disagree with these corporations, when we purchase or refuse to purchase, goods or services.

Thats called a free market.

If This Doesn't Chill Your Blood, You're Not Breathing

Democrats trying to criminalize citizen journalism

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
12/03/09 5:10 PM EST

An amendment to a bill currently being considered by the Senate would deny ordinary citizens doing vital investigations in the public interest the same legal protections as professional journalists. If it were to become law, the change could significantly stifle important citizen journalism efforts similar to the recent ACORN expose.

The Senate is currently considering a new press shield law sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. The bill would "maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media." Except that Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Cal., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., want to ensure that any new journalistic protections would only apply to professional journalists and not regular citizens. An amendment filed by Durbin and Feinstein would modify the legislation to define journalists thusly:

Read the rest after the jump

I'm Confused

The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union (ACLU) goes after people they claim are violating the 1st Amendment by praying in school.

How do private citizens violate the 1st Amendment? What are they guilty of?

The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Which part of that Amendment are private citizens violating?
They aren't Congress.
The 1st amendment applies to CONGRESS, not citizens.

Just wondering

Louisiana Man Stopped and Detained For Bumper Sticker

DC Protest Warrior: LA Man Stopped and Detained For Bumper Sticker

Hey Hey Ho Ho Napolitano Has To Go

The Center for Individual Freedom

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano MUST BE FIRED!
And just so it's perfectly clear, we aren’t talking about her resigning (either gracefully or in disgrace). And it’s way too late for backhanded apologies, like the 'slap-in-the-face' she already gave the brave men and women who have wore a uniform and proudly served this country.
Janet Napolitano must be FIRED... and it should have been done yesterday! You see, the problem is not just that Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put together a so-called anti-terrorism security assessment that targets mainstream Americans as dangerous extremists.
We're talking about millions of people who believe that our government is too large and taxes us too much, like those who participated in the TEA Parties on tax day. We are talking about everyday Americans who believe that the 2nd Amendment actually gives people the right to bear arms; people who are pro-life; the millions of people who believe that our nation’s immigration laws should be strictly enforced.
And the problem is not simply that this so-called security assessment targets patriotic Americans - and they are talking about YOU - as "right wing extremists," or, as Peter Kirsanow with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights put it: “That DHS report warning about all manner of ‘right-wing extremists’ could be considerably shortened if it simply alerted law-enforcement officials to be on the lookout for people from ‘small towns (who are) bitter (and) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.’”
The problem is that this is the same Janet Napolitano who just recently told us that horrendous, unspeakable acts committed by actual terrorists, dead set on destroying our country and killing Americans, should be called “man-caused disasters."
Specifically she told Der Spiegel: “In my speech, although I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to 'man-caused' disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
So... when it comes to actual acts or threats of terrorism against mainstream Americans, we should move beyond the "politics of fear."
But patriotic Americans like YOU – who exercise your Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights – pose a threat to the government.
Is it actually possible that Napolitano and Barack Obama and even some within the Obama Administration are so twisted as to believe that Islamic Terrorists are the good guys and that you are the bad guys?
Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin in Thursday's Washington Times wrote: “What and who exactly are President Obama’s homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism, or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You.”
If what is contained in this leaked DHS security assessment does not bring you to the realization that it is time for all patriotic Americans who love freedom to stand up and shout that we're not going to take it anymore... it is quite possible that nothing will.

The DHS Report Targets All Of You Bitter People Out There Who Cling To Guns And Religion. Malkin is not alone. Syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Reagan went so far as to ask the following: “Have we really come to this? Has Adolf Hitler's propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels been reborn and recruited by the Obama administration to scare the heck out of the American people with absurdities such as this whacked-out document?"
Lance Fairchok writing for AmericanThinker.com hits the nail squarely on the head. Calling this so-called security assessment "a shot across the bow" he plainly states that DHS is NOT simply referring to individuals living on society's fringe.
The assessment is, in fact, referring to YOU and patriotic Americans like you.
Moreover, Fairchok believes this assessment was hastily and sloppily written in order to fit a sick and disgusting preconceived notion: "This 'assessment' is not an analysis of a national trend or an examination of existing evidence or even recent radical literature; it is targeting those whose politics fall within the broad insinuations contained within its pages, namely mainstream conservatives."
Judge Andrew Napolitano with FOX News essentially says the same thing: "The summary contains few proper names, has no footnotes of any significance, lists very few sources, and is drafted with a prejudice against anyone who criticizes the role of the federal government in our lives today. It lumps together in its definition of 'rightwing extremism' hate groups, anti-government groups, and single issue groups 'such as opposition to abortion or immigration.'” Let's state it more plainly. As far as Janet Napolitano's DHS is concerned, if you are pro-life or believe in strict enforcement of our immigration laws, or if you attended one of those TEA parties, you're the same as a neo-Nazi, or a member of the KKK. You are dangerous and pose no less a threat than the real terrorists trying to destroy our great country. Is it possible that when Barack Obama spoke of bitter people from small towns who cling to God and their guns that he was not just simply being derisive?
Is it possible that pointing out that Barack Obama sat in a Church for years listening to a lunatic pontificate, "Not God Bless America... God D___ America" WAS relevant after all? .