As Americans head off to town meetings to inform their congressmen and women what they’d like done – and not done – by the government, dissent has become an issue.
Well, isn’t that just special? Our special interest representatives congressional “representatives” brag about not reading a bill to postalize a sixth of the American economy, and then they wonder why the “folks back home” are just a tad bit upset? “Throw grandma under the euthanasia train? No! We wouldn’t do that! Just trust us on this!”
In fact, they seem genuinely surprised we don’t trust them! They think we should say “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” when they disdain to let us address them for 30 seconds in a carefully scripted “town meeting,” where the answers aren’t answers at all; just evasion points generated by some snot-nosed kid on their staff (whom we pay for).
Well, some of them have experienced real town meetings. With angry voters. And I notice that they are now guarded with publicly paid thugs to make sure dissent doesn’t get “out of hand” (read become too effective).
That makes me wonder: Why is it legitimate free speech for AIDS protesters to throw blood on people who question spending on AIDS research, but it’s a big no-no for voters to shout at self-appointed-for-life congressional royalty writing the euthanasia rules for retiring baby boomers? (And to you Brown Shirts who love to report people to the White House Stasi, there is no other way to pay for this. This is as factual as it gets.)
Maybe we should look at what limits the Constitution places on political dissent. Well, here it is in the First Amendment:
“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.”
Well, I see three limits. The first says Congress cannot establish a state religion, be it humanism or Islam.
The second says the Congress can’t make any laws that abridge the freedom of speech (like burning flags, throwing blood on people and submerging figures of Christ in urine). You know, the stuff Democrats love.
And the third says that protests for redress of grievances must remain peaceful.
Since postalizing health care is not yet law, discussion pro and con would seem to fall under the free speech clause. The only prohibition there is on Congress. And it would seem to me that a congressperson surrounding himself with armed thugs during “town meetings” would be designed to stifle free speech. Just my opinion. You might feel different when the gun is pointed at you.
Ditto for the police, the overwhelming majority of whom seem to be black in the videos showing them hauling off white voters who are simply demanding answers about grandma’s impending euthanasia from their “elected by ACORN” “representative.” Just an observation.
Now, when the “folks back home” set up campgrounds on the congressperson’s front yard, what are the police going to do? The only “input” most of these elected-for-life congressional morons get is when a lobbyist sits down to explain the quid-pro-quo of a donation to their perpetual re-election campaign. The “folks back home” aren’t going to be quite so kind.
