Wisdoma

San Francisco votes passed Proposition I which states that it:

“Shall [] be City policy to oppose military recruiting in public schools and consider funding scholarships for education and training that could provide an alternative to military service.”

So much for the First Amendment. The libs running San Francisco can talk about how they are open and inclusive of all viewpoints, but the fact is they only support opinions they agree with. Liberal Nazis. Not like an opinion? Ban it. Not want someone explaining the possibility of military service to defend the country? Ban it.

Instead of military service San Francisco is going to pony up money for school scholarships and job training? Doesn’t the city have high enough taxes and enough fiscal problems? There is no limit to the amount of other people’s money politicians are willing to spend.

Above all else, let someone else defend the country.

The US Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London has transformed the fundamental property rights upon which America and western civilization has been built into Feudal America. The government can essentially control all property, allowing ordinary persons to have only what it deems appropriate.

In short, the government can condemn, that is, take your property (and pay you for it), and give it to someone else, even if your property is not blighted or a harm to society, if someone else can make a better use of the property thereby generating more taxes, jobs, or some other proposed benefit for society. In Kelo, people’s homes were taken so that Pfizer could build a factory employing the community.

Hello feudalism. The government decides what is the best use for your property. The government will always be able to articulate some benefit it achieves, whether it is more taxes, more jobs, or some ambiguous public benefit.

This is a far-ranging opinion. Only the rich and powerful will be able to pay government officials and make the claim as to some societal benefit to be obtained. Incidental, of course, to the benefits received by the rich and powerful.

In medieval Europe the lord owned the land and controlled the masses. It was not until private ownership of property became accepted that Europe began emerging from the dark ages. The security of private property ownership is one of our most important rights. But that has now been taken away. All private property is at risk of being taken and given to someone else. Let us start with the property owned by 5 Supreme Court justices….

In Lodi, California, just a half-hour from Sacramento, the feds have arrested several Muslim clerics. These persons are potentially terrorists and helped Al Qaeda - but that is not why they were arrested. They are being held, without bail, for lying to the FBI about their whereabouts and what they were doing.

But first, assuming these are terrorists, do I care what they are being held for? Lock em up and throw away the key. Traffic violation? Send them to prison. Sort of like Al Capone. He never went to prison for being a gangster. They finally stuck a tax evasion charge on him.

More recently, Martha Stewart went to prison. Her crime? Playing Pinocchio. She did not go to jail for insider trading.

What is disturbing here is a theme that is becoming more and more common. Not just these two high profile situations, but in numerous articles about criminal cases. The government is putting people in jail for their lies and not for any underlying crimes. Sure, in the short-term I like finding any excuse to put away a terrorist. But in the long-term, the government power and loss of the freedom to speak is frightening.

Hello Big Brother and Goodbye First Amendment.

It is one thing to speak your mind - like I am doing now. But what if you say something wrong? Is there a right to lie? Is there a right to be wrong? If the risk is going to jail people will shut-up and de Tocqueville’s America will no longer exist.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect speech - including lies. Who decides if there is a lie? Different people witnessing the same incident will have different versions of what happened. The truth to one person is a lie to another.

If questioned by the government, if someone does not answer a question they could run the risk of going to prison for interfering with an investigation. If they assert the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination they are just waving a red flag saying guilty - leading to more investigation. Even if they tell the truth, if the government takes down their statement wrong, or there is a rogue government employee intent on taking someone down, their claim someone lied could put them in jail.

Get the picture? They sure did in the founding of this country, and from that experience our Constitutional and rights of free speech were created - rights that have swept most of the globe, and hopefully someday all of the planet.

True or False: If someone criticizes the government they cannot be jailed because the government says their speech is a lie?

Let’s bring criminals in for real crimes, and not create Pinocchio Prisons.