Freedom of Speech part two, Democrats in action

By now, everyone is aware of the story of Joe the Plumber. He asked a question of the Saintly B. Hussein Obama, and was promptly targeted for destruction by the lefties in power. 

That's a wonderful example of what happens when you question a Liberal, you're destroyed by the left for daring to question their talking points, or worse, correctly categorizing them as socialist.

However, it's now getting worse. How much worse can it get you may ask, and I'm willing to tell you, until the Feds show up at my door. The FCC is now investigating Military Experts who have spoken on TV, and not used the Democratic Party platform of the War in Iraq is lost. In other words, the Military Experts spoke the truth, and now they're being investigated by a Federal Agency.  

A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington.

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The FCC investigation raises the question of whether a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House next year will investigate -- and perhaps criminalize -- all sorts of actions taken by the Bush administration. Obama is leading in all presidential polls, while Democrats are set to greatly increase their hold on the House and Senate.

Imagine the audacity that the Democrats are already showing us, and imagine what will happen over the next four years. 

The basis of the investigation? Simple. The retired military people got their old contacts in the Pentagon to provide them with information, briefings in other words. Then they went on the TV and told the information to the people. Not secret information. No plans, or operations that were going to be happening. Things that had already happened, and the import they may have for the future. Like the surge was going to work, and here's why. Then the surge worked, and here's what we're going to do now. 

Broad and wide reaching explanations, without details on upcoming operations. Generalized information, probably also available to the Press, if they cared to report on the truth about the Military instead of hyping all the negatives. 

The other complaint? Simple as well. The analysts may also be employed by Defense Contractors, advisors to them on weapons system design ideas to make the systems more friendly to troops. This is usually early pre-production, really when the systems are in the planning stages. However, this lifetime of experience is valuable to the contractors, because obviously, you want to hear what the soldiers who use the bloody thing are liable to think about it. 

The complaint is that the analysts may have promoted these designs that they had input on, and the company manufactured, thus giving the company, and the country, a public relations coup. 

Yeah, that's what's wrong here. The people who designed a weapon system, built the system, are not supposed to cheer when it's used to kill terrorists, and save American Soldiers lives.

If it's a robot that's being used to disarm IED's manufactured in Iran, thus saving the Private's life, why wouldn't the company mention that? Oh, that's right, the Democrats will get angry, and investigate them to show they may have technically violated an asinine law from 1934. 

I told you all, the four years of an Obama Presidency would be entertaining. I also predicted that they would over-reach rather quickly. Obama's not even elected yet, much less sworn in, and the Democrats are running Socialism right out of the text book from the old Soviet Union on the American People full speed ahead. 

Abuse of Government Power, using threats and intimidation to silence critics. Well perhaps we should change the title if Obama's elected. Instead of President, we could call him Premier. 

Remember, everyone is a Tovarich. That's Russian for Comrade. 

Freedom of Speech.

Everyone knows that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States covers Freedom of Speech. 

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.

Now, as an aside, I thought it would be fun to highlight other examples where freedom of expression is guaranteed to the individual. 

The Soviet Union guaranteed freedom of expression. On paper, in practice, not so much. 

Article 50 [Expression]

(1) In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

(2) Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets, and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organizations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

So what you might ask, and it's a good question. The difference is simple. Americans actually practice our rights, while the Soviets saw their rights on paper, but never were able to actually exercise them. 

I got to thinking about this when I saw an article stating that Australia is implementing mandatory internet censorship. 

AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia. 

So if the subject is controversial, it's going to be filtered right out of existence for the people of Australia? Freedom means that friends, free to do, read, or speak things that are unpopular, or even controversial. So where does this freedom end? Your freedoms end, where mine begin. As long as I'm not hurting you, or anyone else, it's my speech and it's guaranteed as long as we the people say it is. 

Now, Child Pornography, obviously, in that, the child is hurt, and thus it's wrong. However, do you need to join China in filtering the information your people get? Is a nationwide internet filter the answer? Let's say someone writes an article that is critical of the Australian Liberals, and that article tells people how to vote the bums out of office. Obviously, to an Australian Liberal, that would be Controversial wouldn't it? So would that article be filtered? 

Probably not right away, but eventually, you can bet your ass it will be. Governments never stop taking freedoms. In the United States, we take freedoms every year, a little at a time. We say, it's necessary for the public good. The words haven't changed on our Constitution, but the reality is the words don't mean what they used to. 

Free Speech zones, usually in a cage, far from those whom you're trying to get your message to, is the norm now. Somehow, this is part of the Homeland security. I'm not sure what a bunch of lunatic college kids have to do with Terrorism, which is what Homeland Security is supposed to be concerned with. The terrorists didn't protest us on 9-11. They attacked us while we sat like sheep planning on everyone liking us. Don't fight back, just wait for the experts to sort this all out. 

So what if Australia filters it's internet, I don't live there, and it's not my problem right? Wrong. Citizens of the world have the internet, and with it they are exposed to thoughts and ideals that otherwise they might not be exposed to. Just take a moment, and imagine what some beaurocrat might find controversial. Censorship is something you don't do, because if you justify it with one topic, it becomes easy to justify it on many more topics.

I've never heard of any topic that was so awful, that it couldn't be discussed. The Liberals have heard of many topics, and you know, they probably like this internet filter. They probably are all happy they can finally shut down the nasty Rush Limbaugh types from the net. 

Our own Government is going to limit speech, should Obama be elected. It's called the Fairness Doctrine, and it's anything but fair. Anything that limits free speech, isn't fair in my understanding of the word, but hey, I'm just a Conservative who thinks that the few little rights we surrender today, will lead to the Chinese society in the US tomorrow. 

One last thought, I wonder if President Obama will be meeting with the Australian Government officials asking for lists of Political Prisoners, like Bush did with China. That's what happens when someone uses free speech in China, and Australia is working on doing the same thing. I wonder, how long it will be before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid meet with President Obama on locking up people who abuse the public trust by speaking freely? 

BEIJING AND SAN FRANCISCO – In prisons across China, inmates languish for committing "political crime" - anything from starting an illegal newspaper, trade union, or unofficial religious church, or speaking a democracy slogan in public.

China is not a liberal state with tolerant laws, as its leaders agree. President Bush, showing solidarity with Christians who are sometimes arrested here, Sunday visited an official Protestant church in Beijing on the last leg of an Asia trip that has stressed what Mr. Bush called the "universal" value of freedom of expression.