Title: U.S. SUPREME COURT SEVERELY ERODES FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO "FREE SPEECH" BY UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF "CAMPAIGN-FINANCE REFORM"

Subtitle: Attempting to solve a pretended problem of "soft-money" campaign contributions, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President deliver a body blow against First Amendment Free Speech rights! "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..." - First Amendment of the United States Constitution

The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!

Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!

Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.

December 20, 2003 -- This month so far has been a terrible time for basic American freedoms and liberties. Before our liberties are completely eroded away, you need to read them fully, for the time is coming when no one will be allowed to claim any rights, freedoms, or privileges based upon the precious document called the Constitution of the United States, and the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights.

In two of the three cases of Constitutional erosion that have occurred since December 1, the culprit was the U.S. Supreme Court, a body which has completely changed American society over the past four (4) decades through its unconstitutional, immoral, and unbiblical activist actions. From the 1963 decision that threw God out of our schools, to the 1973 Abortion on Demand fiasco, to the legalizing of Sodomy just this year, the Supreme Court has changed America in situations where the Legislative branch absolutely could not effect that change because of overwhelming public opposition. As we have before stated, American citizens throw their hands up when it comes to displeasure with the Court system, simply because we do not elect them, and the Justices serve for life. If the President or the Congress tried to legalize Sodomy, for example, they would have faced an electorate that would have frankly been outraged and moved to political activism! Having the Court system decree the necessary and exceedingly hard decisions, this "problem" is overcome.

Let us quickly review the three events that have severely shaken our liberties and freedoms under the Constitution.

I. Second Amendment Right To "Keep and Bear Arms" Stripped From Some Citizens

On December 1, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court silently refused to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court, who had ruled that individuals are not specifically guaranteed a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment of our Constitution. The immediate result is that this decision by the Ninth Court stands approved by the Supreme Court and is now the "law of the land" for those states who are under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Court. However, the really dangerous threat is that this decision is now legal precedent so that other state courts and/or other Circuit Courts may now make similar decisions, basing them on this precedent! Thus, in short order, all individual right to "keep and bear arms" would fall like the proverbial dominoes. We have issued two articles on this subject, as listed below:

* NEWS1877 -- "U.S. SUPREME COURT SILENTLY STRIPS INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! SECOND AMENDMENT NO LONGER APPLIES TO INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS!" -- Details of this disastrous decision -- Part 1 of 2

* NEWS1877b - "HISTORIC RESULTS WHENEVER CITIZENS ALLOW THEIR GOVERNMENT TO CONFISCATE GUNS: History tells us an average of 10 million citizens die after their government confiscates guns!" - Part 2 of 2

II. First Amendment Right To Free Speech Is Seriously Threatened When Supreme Court Upheld Constitutionality Of the Campaign Reform Act

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, legislation which could very well represent the first step toward government regulating all Free Speech. You will realize how critical it is to the life of our freedoms when Congress and the President set about to "regulate" a nonexistent "threat", a threat created out of thin air. This ruling is the subject of this article.

III. President Bush Silently, Stealthily Signed Patriot Act II Into Law!

On December 13, with the attention of the peoples of the world riveted on the capture of Saddam Hussein, President Bush signed into law the most dictatorial act in American history, giving the Executive Department the draconian laws by which Hitler and Stalin repressed and murdered their citizens. We have issued an article on this subject, NEWS1878. Once again, the attacks of 9/11 have been used as an excuse to create the kind of dictatorial powers that Russia's Stalin and Nazi Germany's Hitler once wielded against their citizens; however, these draconian laws have been enacted without being immediately enforced. Thus, many citizens conclude they have nothing about which to worry and so carelessly go about their lives, worried about careers, retirement plans, homes, cars, and entertainment. Such people are going to be the most shocked when all these laws are abruptly enforced at the same time, during a time of a planned "stupendous national crisis and political failure".

America Like Yellowstone Lake

Let me illustrate the current condition of America by use of a real-life example. In the Summer of 1984, I took my wife and children for a 2-week camping trip in Yellowstone National Park, in the Northwest corner of Wyoming. Since Yellowstone lies in the Rocky Mountain region; its elevation ranges from 5,267 at Gardiner to 6,666 at West Yellowstone, to 9,000 feet in some of the hiking trails ["Elderhostel: Adventures In Lifelong Learning", http://www.elderhostel.org/Programs/programdetail.asp?RowId=1%2BOI%2B1543 ]

Yellowstone Lake is incredibly high, at the 7,733-foot level! ["Yellowstone National Park", http://www.yellowstoneparknet.com/geninfo/attr_yellowstone_lake.htm]

On one of the days of our excursion, we took a boat tour on this wonderfully beautiful lake. As we were enjoying the scenic beauty, the tour guide told us that the lake freezes completely over during the winter. This hard freeze occurs all around the 110-mile shoreline, literally from shore to shore. The freeze is so hard it creates an incredibly thick layer of ice; this ice is so strong that an 18-wheeler truck can -- and has -- driven on the lake and all around without any danger of falling through. This freeze is one of the thickest and most durable in the world.

During late March, the water begins to warm up from the underside, gradually thinning the ice. During the months of April and May, the ice layer is getting thinner and thinner, from the underneath. However, the view from the top remains the same as it looked during the months of November and December when you could safely drive that truck on to the ice. In early June, the ice is paper thin and ready to break up; however, the day before the ice breaks up, the surface looks just as solid as it did in December!

Only the fool would think he could still safely go out on the lake; the seasoned veteran knows how thin the ice is, the deceptive look from the top notwithstanding!

America today is a perfect example of this winter cycle on Yellowstone Lake. Following World War I, our institutions were as solid as Yellowstone Lake in December of every year. But, President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal began to warm the ice up, from underneath. Since World War II, our boom/bust cycles, plus Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, plus the Vietnam War, plus the incessant chipping away of our liberties on paper through legislation, Executive Orders, Executive Abuse, and Supreme Court activism, have greatly thinned the ice, from underneath.

Since the 9/11 attacks, our President, Congress, and the Supreme Court have acted in a most dictatorial fashion -- on paper. They demanded, and got, Patriot Acts I and II, plus many other dictatorial powers hidden away in numerous bills. All these new powers have been granted in order to fight the very terrorism that the Illuminati instigated in the first place! However, none of the dictatorial powers has yet been enforced, as we stated earlier.

Today, the ice is paper-thin, awaiting only the final blows of the planned World War III, plus urban terror, to break up the ice once and for all; yet, to many careless observers, the view on the surface looks the same as it always has. The Stock Market is now above 10,000 points, retirement plans continue to be nurtured, careers are still being aggressively pursued, and the favorite sports team is still playing ball. But, only the fool cannot see the danger. The ice of our national foundation is now paper-thin.

Now, let us examine how our First Amendment rights to Free Speech were dramatically threatened this week, by the Supreme Court; however, as you will also see, President Bush abdicated his responsibility in this matter last year.

FREE SPEECH THREATENED BY SUPREME COURT DECISION

NEWS BRIEF: "Finance decision could put chill on the First Amendment", by Warren Richey , The Christian Science Monitor, December 12, 2003 edition

"WASHINGTON – Is the press next in line for congressional regulations? That is a question raised in two dissents filed Wednesday in the US Supreme Court's landmark First Amendment decision upholding campaign-finance reform. If Congress can criminalize certain types of speech by corporations, unions, and advocacy groups in the weeks prior to an election, it is but a short additional step to government regulation of the news media, say Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. 'The freedom of the press, described as one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, could be next on the chopping block', writes Justice Thomas. 'Although today's opinion does not expressly strip the press of First Amendment protection, there is no principle of law or logic that would prevent the application of the court's reasoning in that setting."

Clarence Thomas adds, "The press now operates at the whim of Congress."

Now, how can this be possible? The Campaign Finance Reform Act was debated and originally written to prevent "soft-money" donations from "corrupting" the electoral process. The argument originally was -- and it seemed spurious even at the original time -- was that our electoral process was being corrupted by so much money flowing into the coffers of candidates running for public office. The charge was made that this enormous amount of money has actually bought off candidates. President Clinton began to complain about this "soft-money" issue about 6 years ago, while certain Republican leaders -- like Senator McCain -- climbed on board.

In a 1991 defense of Campaign Finance Reform, Stentor Danielson argued that stopping soft-money contributions could not possibly damage First Amendment Free Speech rights. Listen to excerpts of his argument:

NEWS BRIEF: "Campaign Finance Reform Supports Intent Of First Amendment", 16 February 2001, By Stentor Danielson, http://www.brunchma.com/~acsumama/com/com032301.html

"The Senate kicked off two weeks of debate on campaign finance reform on Monday, giving hope to people who think intervention is necessary to reduce the influence of money on politics. The even Democrat-Republican split in the Senate and the consequent emboldening of centrist leaders like John McCain (R-Az.) increases the likelihood of passing the reform bill sponsored by McCain and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)."

Stop right here, for we have just spotted our first major problem. We learn that this bill was created by "people who think intervention is necessary to reduce the influence of money on politics". Government intervention to "solve" all the nation's ills -- real and imagined -- is the brainchild of President Franklin Roosevelt and his very socialistic New Deal. Ever since then, activists on both sides of the aisle seem all too ready to "intervene" in order to "solve" the nation's problems. The disastrous truth is that, whenever the government seeks to solve a problem, it either makes it worse, or it creates a new problem that never existed before their ill-conceived efforts. This latter truth is what has gotten us into trouble with Campaign Finance Reform.

Let us now continue with Danielson's arguments in favor of Campaign Reform:

"... a substantial amount of opposition to reform of any kind is rooted in the notion that it violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Equating spending unlimited money with free speech misses the point of the First Amendment and endangers democracy. The intent of the First Amendment is to prevent the silencing of dissent. For a democracy to work, it must permit challenge. The First Amendment was written so that I could write 'George W. Bush is a moron' without fearing anything more than a scolding from our President. It defends the individual from that conservative anathema, the 'tyranny of the majority'. An unregulated campaign finance system does just the opposite. It entrenches the views of those for whom our system is working, while silencing those who are not served well by our society. Those who most need to 'petition the government for redress of grievances' are least able to do so, because (as a result of those grievances) they are deprived of the financial means to effectively voice their views.

"Campaign finance reform would not stop anyone from expressing his opinions. What it would stop is the situation in which one person’s opinion is more important than another person’s simply because the first person can afford to pay more money to politicians. The current system perpetuates the kind of rule by the rich elite that democracy was supposed to eliminate ... Corporations, unions and other collectives and organizations are not individuals. They do not and should not get a vote on Election Day, whereas every individual should and in theory does. Therefore, the First Amendment does not protect speech by a group."

This argument sounds so reasonable, who can really refute it? Yet, the reason citizens cannot petition the government for redress of grievances is because the courts regularly defend the government so severely, justices routinely throw out most cases brought against the government by individual citizens. The problem is less a matter of "soft-money" donations and more a case of Judicial Activism protecting the government from its citizens.

Furthermore, this argument contains a hidden poison not readily identifiable by most citizens; but, now that the law has been enacted and the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality, Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas are identifying the disaster, at a time when it may be too late to do anything about it.

Let us go back to our Christian Science Monitor article to see how we got into this mess, when the beginning premise seemed to be either good or innocuous, depending upon your political viewpoint. Justice Scalia is speaking:

"Justice Scalia, in a separate dissent, said the campaign-finance law 'cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government'. He notes that the British Stamp Act of 1712 was aimed at stifling unfavorable war coverage in the British press. Within the year, half the newspapers in England were no longer in business. He cites the example to make the point that 'an attack upon the funding of speech is an attack upon speech itself. Where government singles out money used to fund speech as its legislative object, it is acting against speech as such, no less than if it had targeted the paper on which a book was printed or the trucks that deliver it to the bookstore."

Amen! Justice Scalia rightly points out that you cannot separate the money required to fund free speech from the free speech itself. Justice Thomas had hinted at the basic problem when he said, "The press now operates at the whim of Congress." However, he does not quite put his finger on the crux of the threat this bill poses to our Free Speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

For that insight, we must go to another scholar.

"Joel Gora, associate dean at Brooklyn Law School and an American Civil Liberties Union counsel in the campaign-finance case .... "If Congress can limit the speech of the ACLU, why isn't The New York Times that far behind ... The New York Times is a corporation', Mr. Gora says. 'We have long said that the principles that would permit Congress to limit the speech of the ACLU would also allow them to limit the speech of The New York Times'."

Now we understand! If Congress can regulate the electoral activities of a corporation like the ACLU, or General Motors, or any other corporation wanting to give "soft-money" donations to candidates, it is but a very short step to regulating other corporations like 'The New York Times'! Once freedom of the press is thus regulated in any manner, shape, or form, it is but a short step to regulating it severely, until no truth unpleasant to the government can be printed!

And, if large press corporations can be regulated, then medium to small corporations can similarly be regulated to the point of being shut down!

Do you see what a disaster our government officials can get us into when they insist they need to "intervene" in order to "solve" a problem? This reality is especially true when the politicians seeking to intervene have a secret agenda, one of destroying our Constitution!

This Supreme Court ruling even has the ACLU complaining. Listen:

NEWS BRIEF: "Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Law:, ACLU, 12/10/03, http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=14560&c=261

"The ACLU is a non-partisan organization that has never endorsed a candidate in its 83-year history. After today’s decision, however, the ACLU runs the risk of criminal prosecution if it broadcasts an advertisement in the period preceding an election that urges voters to contact their Senator or Representative about important civil liberties legislation, if those officials also happen to be running for office. Today's decision also means that the ACLU will face new hurdles if it seeks to broadcast advertisements during the ongoing presidential campaign discussing the position of the various candidates on the civil liberties consequences of the war on terrorism."

I find it incredible that a liberal organization like the ACLU, whose values are so diametrically opposed to ours, feels unconstitutionally restrained by this Campaign Finance Reform law. Let us go back briefly to another clarifying statement by the ACLU:

"The notion that the government can tell an organization like the ACLU when and how it should address important civil liberties issues is a form of censorship masquerading as campaign finance reform', said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. 'The fact that those restrictions have now been upheld by the Supreme Court is extremely disappointing'."

But, it is not just our Congress nor our Supreme Court who has placed our Free Speech at risk. The President's own press release on the day he signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law demonstrates that he failed to properly act to protect our rights.

The President Signed This Flawed Bill Even Though He Recognized Its Restraint On Free Speech

NEWS BRIEF: "President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act: Statement by the President", White House Press Release, March 27, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

"Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns ... However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections. I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."

If the President of the United States has serious reservations about the constitutionality of any bill -- but especially one that is so potentially damaging to our First Amendment rights to Free Speech -- he should veto the bill so there is absolutely no chance it could ever become law! Congress is our first line of defense, but in this case, it failed. The President is our second line of defense, and he failed, even though he recognized its unconstitutionality! By signing a bill he thought might be unconstitutional, he refused to protect us; the protection of the presidency is very large, because his veto can only be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress!

Lastly, the Supreme Court failed us.

This scenario might be likened to a football team's defense. Suppose a pass is caught in the center of the field, in the middle of the defensive secondary. The first player that could have made the tackle refused to try because he knew he had two more defenders behind him. The second defensive player likewise refused to try to make the tackle, because he know the safety was between the offensive player and the goal line. However, the safety missed the tackle, allowing the opposing team to score!

What do you think the coaches on the sideline would say to these three players?

Our Congress failed, our President failed, and now our Supreme Court has failed to protect us.

Now, government regulatory agencies control the Free Speech of corporations during the months before a campaign. Like Justices Scalia and Thomas noted, it is but a very short step to regulating press corporations like The New York Times, of ABC News, or The Christian Science Monitor, and so on and so forth. Do you see now why both Bill and Hillary Clinton thought this idea was so splendid?

But, more importantly, can you see what Cutting Edge has been warning of for so many years? Labels placed upon public officials mean absolutely nothing; in fact, labels such as Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, or Republican, actually mask the reality that the inner hearts of these officials beat with the same resonance, a harmony created by the New World Order Plan!

What is the bottom line of all this activity?

Let us allow ACLU member, James MacGregor Burns, the last statement, quoted above:

"I doubt that Americans under normal conditions could agree on the package of radical and 'alien' constitutional changes that would be required. They would do so, I think,only during and following a stupendous national crisis and political failure."

This statement is the heart of the plan to bring down elected, Constitutional government in the United States so we can be melded into the global community of nations who will welcome Antichrist. Can you hear the hoofbeat of the four horses of the Apocalypse?

Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.

If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.

If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.

If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.

We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.

Finally, we would love to hear from you.

You can contact us by mail or email.

God bless you.

• Cutting Edge Home Page
  
• Index of Free Radio Show Transcripts
  
• Currently In The News
  
• Newsletters Archives
  
• Freemasonry Corner
  
• Meet the Staff
  
• From A Pastor's Heart
  
• Supporting Your Internet Outreach Ministry
  
• Cutting Edge Seminars On Tape
  
• Cutting Edge Book Store
  
• Thus Saith Rome
  
• Teachings From the Catechism