By Josh Tolley
GCN Live.com

People like to say that America is the land of the free and home of the brave.

As I look around, I am left with a question which nobody seems to want to ask. Where in our American lives do we still have freedom?

Let us take a look at American life together, and see if we are in disagreement.

The freedom of the press:

Once referred to as the “4th branch of government” the media has, for decades now, perverted true journalism. As sad as that may be, what is truly alarming is the fact that even if true journalism was to try to make a comeback it would be met by a government which is trying to kill it. With recent administrations cracking down on information available to the media, punishing reports for use of video phones, and even the FBI/DHS admitting to spying on and keeping files of journalists, the message is clear; do not speak freely. Don’t believe me, ask the reporter who was locked in a closet during a Joe Biden event. You may think to yourself; “Well that is fine, I’m not a journalist. I can still say whatever I want.” You would be wrong.

Freedom of religion:

This is a basic pillar of what makes America great. The ability for people to live out their faith (or lack thereof) free from persecution or punishment is vital to the “land of the free.”

However, this freedom is being destroyed. From street preachers being arrested, to Bibles being illegal in Colorado. From the government using the EPA to influence churches, to the ability to live out your faith. Religious life is becoming more of a criminal act every day.

The right to keep and bear arms:

This once great hitching post of American freedom has become equally abused, but under the guise of liberty. Today, most states issue a concealed carry permit. This of course is not only against the founding fathers desire regarding “arms” but it is actually a way to strip you of your “right” and turn it into a licensed privilege. Through the use of fear and perversion, the government literally stole a right, right from under our noses.

Not to mention, as seen during hurricane Katrina, the government is more than willing to mute your rights through gun confiscation when they so desire.

Food and Water:

With less than 2% of food grown and eaten locally, the majority of our food choices are no longer choices at all. Combine that with the fact that in many states it is now illegal to consume raw milk and produce, illegal to hunt game and give meat to your neighbors, illegal to grow gardens, and illegal to even collect rainwater.

Let us also not forget the government’s role in promoting GMO crops, GMO livestock, and a USDA/FDA system which rewards bad behavior while punishing health. We even have local governments purposefully drugging drinking water.

As stated recently by a judge in Wisconsin: “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.”

Parenting of our children:

You would think that parenting would remain a right of the parents. However, we are seeing increasingly the ability for the government to strip parents from their fundamental rights and duties. Abortion and drug administration without parental consent or even knowledge, vaccinations without parental consent or knowledge, restrictions on schooling options, and many others are just examples of how parents are really no longer parents in the eyes of the government but rather just regulated providers of shelter until the government deems otherwise. Even after the rights of the parents have been stripped the children are subjected to continued abuse at the hands of “the system.”

Rights of privacy:

This has become a joke. From illegal search and seizure in places like Tennessee, to the outright destruction of privacy as seen in Indiana when the court ruled against 400+ years of law and common decency, privacy has become footnote in history. Our government is making the push to get 30,000 drones in the sky and a stated goal to gain access to all your electronic information, including your cell phone. It is become abundantly clear that we can never put this genie back in the bottle and our ability to have some amount of privacy is gone for good.

Right to our own bodies:

Recently the FDA filed a court case claiming the right of regulation over human lives. Based on the premise that stem cells are used in treatment, the stem cells are therefor considered to be a drug. If you have stem cell treatment it then means YOU are a drug and as a drug you fall under regulation of the FDA. Keep in mind; this is only one sentence away from making everyone with stem cells (which is everyone) a drug and falling under their authority.

Privacy of your own thoughts:

The government is working hard to implement “pre-crime” which should have stayed in Sci-fi movies. This reality is gaining traction through implementation screening processes and research has even gone as far as being able to download your mind. No more ability to plead the 5th!

Earning and keeping of financial gain:

Our financial system has been corrupted now for 100 years. The government dictates the worth of our labor through inflation and debt with no input for the generators of that labor. Your ability to keep the little you do earn is becoming increasingly hard as taxes continue to rise on all Americans. Many people believe that income tax is the only tax we pay, but when you look at gas tax, sales tax, sin tax, restaurant tax, building permits, parking meters, car registration, and the dozens of other expenses that are paid by you to the government, our ability to keep the rewards from our labor are limited at best.

Property rights:

From the EPA classifying your land as “wetland” to the local counties instituting nuisance enforcement teams to prevent people from going “off grid” and become self-sufficient; the ability for you to own property is only a myth. This illusion is little more than your ability to rent the land from the government through the payment of property tax, maintain that property according to their regulations, build upon it only that which the government approves, and then limit your activity to that which benefits said government.

The right to vote:

As we have seen even as recently as 2012, the voting system has been compromised, it has been breached. Matter of fact, there was even testimony in recent years regarding the ability for voting to be falsely thrown 51/49 without even the local officials being able to tell the system has been hijacked.

This list of lost freedom could continue for pages and include the right to a jury of our peers, search warrants based on probably cause, legal representation, and so on. So I ask you, what part of our life in America is still free?

I contend that there is not one, no not one, area in which we could make the case that the people are free. If freedom does not exist for the people and that freedom is essential to the definition of America, then I must ask with a heavy heart; does America itself actually exist any longer?

---

Josh Tolley is the host of The Josh Tolley Show, which airs on GCN Monday-Friday 9:00-11:00am Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Madison Ruppert
End the Lie

So much for change – The Obama administration is continuing their efforts to go back on every single campaign promise and beyond all odds make themselves look even worse than the administration of George W Bush.

Personally, I didn’t think such a thing was possible but with the extrajudicial killing of Americans, refusal to explain why they think they can engage in such activities (multiple times, no less), the passing the radically un-American National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), and so much more, Obama is doing a great job at proving me wrong.

Now to continue this trend, Barack Obama has instructed the Justice Department to defend the warrantless wiretapping policy first introduced under George W. Bush.

In response, just last week the Department of Justice filed papers with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn a decision from an appeals court which allowed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to continue.

This suit challenged the constitutionality of a law passed in 2008 which gave the American government what had previously been an unprecedented amount of power to snoop on American citizens without any semblance of probable cause.

Of course the NDAA, signed into law by Obama, makes this look tame, as now they can just snatch you up in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, based on nothing more than a suspicion.

The warrantless wiretapping began soon after the attacks on September 11, 2001, a time which allowed for a great deal of draconian, unconstitutional legislation to be pushed through while the American people were still cowering in fear.

At the time many people were thoroughly frightened of the al Qaeda boogeyman who the government and media quickly blamed the attacks on, although since then things have changed considerably.

Now a great deal of the American public has come to question the official story, although there is far from a consensus on the issue as of yet. I honestly believe that it will be many years before we can approach such a point.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept and monitor the telephone calls of Americans without any warrants which were not only required under the Constitution of the United States but also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

FISA, created in response to the Watergate scandal, was supposedly intended to limit domestic surveillance, although I think we all know that claims is laughable.

FISA created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a special court intended to review all requests for domestic surveillance.

Between the years of 1978 and 1992 Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush together presented some 7,030 applications to FISC, all of which were approved.

Bill Clinton presented 6,057 in his eight year tenure and only two of them were not approved as-is. One was rejected and the other was modified.

Under George W. Bush, FISC bucked the previous trend somewhat, rejecting six requests and modifying another 179.

Bush was clearly infuriated by the FISC judges’ unwillingness to do whatever he wanted, thus leading to his move to completely circumvent FISC by entirely bypassing the law, instead ordering the NSA to conduct the illegal, unconstitutional wiretapping practices in secret.

Once the program was outed in 2005 by the New York Times, the Bush administration attempted to backpedal and get FISC approval.

When his attempts fell short, he then instead went to Congress in an attempt to get them to permit the previously prohibited practice of warrantless wiretapping. He did this through passing the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which he signed into law on July 10 of 2008.

Less than an hour after, the ACLU jumped into action and challenged the act, which is set to expire at the end of 2012.

In March of last year, the appeals court ruled in favor of the ACLU and reinstated their lawsuit which challenged the legality of the FISA Amendments Act.

In the decision, the court rejected the argument put forth by the Obama administration which claimed that the court should dismiss the case simply because the ACLU’s clients could not prove that their communications would be collected under the FISA Amendments Act.

Writing for AllGov, Matt Bewig and David Wallechinsky state this argument “was true largely because the law creates great secrecy around the wiretaps in the first place – a true ‘Catch-22.’”

Indeed the American government has become increasingly reliant on pervasive secrecy in order to cover their unconstitutional, illegal and often highly immoral actions.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has exploited secrecy to an extreme which even George W. Bush couldn’t hold a candle to.

I guess that’s what America gets for being naïve enough to vote for someone approved by the political establishment promising real change. I see it somewhat like people who are ignorant enough to actually play the slots in Vegas. Sure, they promise large payouts but if you know what you’re up against you’ll never be stupid enough to throw away your money when you’re aware of the infinitesimal chances of coming out on top.

Hopefully the Obama presidency will serve as proof that you can never, under any circumstances, no matter how charismatic and intelligent they may seem, trust a politician.

If we continue to fall for these political tricks we will only see more abuses of power and exploitation of secrecy, all working towards solidifying the American police state and the Big Brother surveillance grid to the point where it is impossible to resist.

Once the NDAA comes into effect, we very well might already be at that point – as hard as it is to accept such a thing as reality, we might not have a choice.

---

This is where the lie ends. The American people are waking up to the fact that the mainstream media is controlled by a very small group of elite billionaires who decide exactly what stories to cover. We at End the Lie force politicians to address the real issues, force government to be accountable and transparent, and force real change to occur in our country. Every American needs to get informed and stand up for the principles upon which our wonderful country was founded. Do it now with End the Lie.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

By Jim Brown
GCN Live.com

I’m confused about the controversy surrounding the debate over the President’s new birth control rule.

Some religious leaders, especially U.S. Catholic Bishops, as well as a litany of republican politicians, have criticized the White House proposal that all health insurance plans have to offer birth control options. But is it the birth control requirement that has engendered so much animosity, or is really more an issue of government interference in church related policy? Is it pelvic politics or religious freedom?

The White House has offered a birth control alternative that allows a religious employer to decline contraception options, but requires that the employer’s insurance company make these same options available directly to the employee. If any employee of such an institution desires the birth control option, the insurance company has to supply it free of charge to the employee. But no service is free. Somebody has to pay for it. If the insurance provider cannot charge additional cost to the religious based plan, the new charges will end up being paid by the other policyholders buying health insurance. Like you and me. There’s no free lunch.

To say that a religious institution is not supplying contraceptives to their employees under such a plan is nothing more than an accounting gimmick. If you’re the boss and you make arrangements for your employees to be covered by some outside source, you’re the one making the decision. Call the process what you will, but under this new plan, religious institutions are not really exempt from the new federal rule.

So should any institution be exempt from the birth control rules? It may be reasonable, as a guideline for any future legal challenge, to consider the purpose of the institution. The mission of a church is to teach religion. Therefore, any employee of a church would come to work knowing that the focus of such a religious entity is to teach religious doctrine. And part of that doctrine may be the prohibition of contraception.

But the primary purpose of a hospital is healthcare. In my hometown of Baton Rouge, we are fortunate to have a first rate catholic hospital called, The Lady of the Lake. It is an outreach commitment of the Franciscan Missionaries. The medical care is excellent. I’ve visited The Lady of the Lake Hospital numerous times, and never once have I gotten the impression that there is an effort to spread catholic doctrine. The mission of Lady of the Lake and other religious affiliated hospitals I have visited is to provide healthcare.

Remember that these religious affiliated hospitals operate on more than just insurance and patient proceeds. In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, as well as federal, state and community grants, provide funds and are all from public resources. So with so much public money involved, how do you justify giving certain institutions exemptions from the rules? Shouldn’t there be uniformity where tax dollars are involved? If the rules are unfair, throw out the politicians who voted for and implemented such rules, and then lobby to change the rules for all.

Offering birth control to employees by any business, church related or not, is certainly not a new precept. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that, “Contraception is the single most prescribed medicine for women between 18 and 44 years old, and nine out of ten insurers and employers already cover it.” Twenty-eight states already have mandated the same contraception availability healthcare coverage that is proposed in the new federal plan.

The Guttmacher Institute, a non partisan research organization, released a study last year that concluded 98 percent of American Catholic Women have used artificial birth control. The Public Religion Research Institute reported last week that 52 percent of Catholics back the new plan and believe that birth control should be part of any insurance option offered by Catholic universities and hospitals. So it would seem that a majority of Catholics oppose the special exemption from the new plan being demanded by Catholic institutions.

So now we continue down this “slippery slope.” I would doubt that Catholic bishops believe they alone are entitled to exemptions when their beliefs are at odds with public policy in regard to health care. So what about Christian Scientists who traditionally oppose medical procedures? And the Jehovah Witnesses who believe human blood transfusions are wrong.

Can Jewish orthodox businesses restrict what medical procedures their employees can receive? Can ultraconservative Muslim businesses demand that medical clinics be segregated by gender? Can certain treatments be banned from being offered to employees of exempted special groups? Does religious freedom mean that religious institutions have the right to restrict or interfere with public policy, in this case regarding healthcare?

The founders of our country felt quite strongly about the importance of the separation of the church and state. The government should not choose favorites, and allow religion to practice outside the constraints of public authority. But this separation works both ways. George Washington clarified this distinction by saying: “The United States should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”

Thomas Jefferson continued Washington’s dialogue by pointing out that there are obligations on both church and state to maintain responsible separation. “The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked.” What Jefferson is saying is that there are freedoms to believe and freedoms to act. There must be a fine, but firm line between supporting religious beliefs and protecting all citizens in an equal manner. According to our founders, it should be a hard line to cross.

******

“The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes.”
- Humorist Dave Berry

Peace and Justice
Jim Brown

---

Jim Brown is the host of Jim Brown’s Common Sense talk radio show, which airs on GCN Sundays 9:00am-11:00am Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Kurt Nimmo
GCN Live

Gene “the Machine” Sperling has called for a “global minimum tax” on corporations.

Obama’s director of the National Economic Council linked the call to the so-called Buffett Rule, a scheme based on statements made by investor Warren Buffett who said government should confiscate more money from the rich in order to reduce the tax burden on the poor.

Following Sperling’s comments yesterday and heated response in the blogosphere, officialdom responded by saying “there’s no United Nations-imposed duty in the works,” as Politico phrased it.

Sperling said the government “is looking for shared sacrifice” in its quest for more revenue. “He was referring to our proposal in the Blueprint for an American Built to Last that removes tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas,” a White House official said.

The Cato Institute did some fact checking after Obama’s SOTU teleprompter reading. Cato points out that the government encourages sending American jobs to slave labor hellholes like China and Vietnam and imposes a 40 percent tax rate on corporations that invest in the United States.

Obama’s “Blueprint for an American Built to Last” is cynical class warfare rhetoric for the ill-informed who will vote him back into office in November. The so-called 1% never pay taxes. They put their money into tax-exempt securities and move it offshore.

“In other words, the genuinely rich are likely to be the least harmed by high tax rates in the top brackets,” writes Thomas Sowell. “People who are looking for jobs are likely to be the most harmed, because they cannot equally easily transfer themselves overseas to take the jobs that are being created there by American investments that are fleeing from high tax rates at home.”

Likewise, small business – the real engine of job creation in America – is unable to transfer themselves overseas and escape the tax collectors.

Officialdom insists Obama’s blueprint wasn’t cooked up at the United Nations. Instead, it was conceived by the globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations, where Mr. Sperling is on staff as Senior Fellow for Economic Policy.

The CFR, Federal Reserve, Geithner’s Treasury where Sperling works, the IMF, World Bank, the Trilateral Commission, and the United Nations all work for the international bankers who are installing world government and a centralized global banking structure, so any dismissals by the White House are irrelevant.

---

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Paul Joseph Watson
GCN Live

However, the White House still claims power to intervene in world wide web.

The much feared Obama Internet ‘kill switch’ has been dropped from the latest incarnation of the cybersecurity bill which was introduced yesterday, but the White House still claims that it can intervene in the world wide web under the 1934 law that created the Federal Communications Commission.

“Public apprehension about the possibility of handing the White House a “kill switch” for the Internet has dogged the cybersecurity debate, fueled by a proposal that would have codified emergency powers for the president in the event of a catastrophic attack,” reports the Hill.

Indeed, cybersecurity advocate Joe Lieberman ominously pushed for the ‘kill switch’ provision to be included in the bill by citing the Chinese system of Internet policing as a model to which the United States should aspire.As we have documented, China routinely censors the Internet and cuts off access in order to hide evidence of government corruption and to cover up atrocities committed by the state.

Although language allowing the President to flip a figurative kill switch to shut down parts of the Internet is gone, the White House still claims that it already retains such powers under the law that created the Federal Communications Commission in 1934. This law states that if a “state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency” exists, the president may “authorize the use or control of any…station or device.”

Despite the more controversial aspects having disappeared from the bill, it still contains plenty of provisions that represent a sweeping power grab on behalf of the federal government.

One such provision would empower the Department of Homeland Security to conduct “risk assessments” of private companies in certain sectors and force them to comply with expensive mandates to secure their systems.

Despite the Internet kill switch provision being dropped from the bill, the web as a whole still faces innumerable threats to the anonymity, privacy and freedom of speech of those who use it.

Despite the recent defeat of SOPA and PIPA, protests over governments signing up for ACTA, a global treaty that grants copyright holders sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim, have swept Europe.

---

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.