Amendment I
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.
Of course, there's an endless list of constitutional violations by the government. Would you like to know why?
Because most Americans, even politically active Americans, just throw their hands up in the air, maybe complain ... but basically just waive the white flag of surrender when it comes to government action (or inaction).
Today, in the "home of the free," bloggers are now under attack!
What can I do, I'm only one vote?
Be more selective in your voting decisions. Vote for principle instead of Party.
That's just the way it is. There's nothing we can do.
Then please ... DON'T VOTE! You're causing more trouble than it's worth.
So and so just keeps doing the opposite of what they promised on their campaign.
Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, shame on YOU!
Well, it doesn't affect me, so who cares?
Take the binky out of your mouth. Grow a backbone. Be an adult ... and THINK before you vote!
"The Regulators Are Coming! The Regulators Are Coming!"
Regulators: Is blogging lobbying?
Web-based activists could be forced to publicly detail their finances.
OLYMPIA - Blogger beware: State regulators are wondering whether online political activism amounts to lobbying, which could force Web-based activists to publicly detail their finances.
In a collision of 21st-century media and 1970s political reforms, the inquiry hints at a showdown over press freedoms for bloggers, whose self-published journals can shift among news reporting, opinion writing, political organizing and campaign fundraising.
State officials are downplaying any possible media-rights conflict ...
But the blogosphere is taking the notion seriously. One prominent liberal blogger in Seattle is already issuing a dare: If the government wants David Goldstein to file papers as a lobbyist, it will have to take him to court.
For online political junkies like Goldstein, stirring up the public and urging readers to sound off about public policy are a key part of the mission.
But, as Goldstein pointed out in a recent public meeting on the topic, the same could be said for newspaper editorialists or radio commentators - and they're exempt from reporting their income and spending ...
"What you're basically saying is, if you want to raise any money at all, now you have to report," Goldstein said. "It's treating us entirely different than other media outlets."
"One of the issues was the grass-roots involvement, in terms of prompting individuals, in a call to action, to contact legislators, to send in letters," said Doug Ellis, the PDC's assistant director.
In this environment, Sreenivasan said, regulators facing a question about who qualifies as media might need to undertake a much more detailed examination of the content being produced.
The Great "Grass-roots" scare ... and what it means:
The government and its politicians realize that bloggers are willing to talk about things that the mainstream media (MSM), for the most part, steers clear from (or at least doesn't give much traction to). Bloggers don't worry about getting invited to the next press conference, cocktail party, do panels, moderate debates, get seats on campaign airplanes, etc ... so politicians and government officials are held to much higher scrutiny on blogs.
For example, when the sudden, out of nowhere, "emergency" $700 billion bailout was demanded by the Bush administration, the MSM pundits started yappin' about the "Economic Crisis," while counting down the minutes to doom (if Congress, uh, "failed" to pass it).
The blogosphere jumped on the bailout, both from the Left and Right, and discussed the obvious truth: Most Americans were AGAINST the bailout!
The government is losing their ability to disseminate information the way THEY want you to hear it. And they're scared!
Just ask these politicos ... defenders of resurrecting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
"The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that... But you can't say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent." - Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Yes, you read that correctly. Schumer just equated your political speech to porn.
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision." - Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
"I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness." - Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Ummm ... who's stopping WHAT side of WHO's story from being heard WHERE?
The answer to the question is obvious: Schumer, Durbin, Feinstein, and the rest of their ilk are running into resistance when they attempt to spread their lies. So, coming to the only conclusion they can ...
Scrapping the First Amendment is the surest way for them to CONTROL the information.
