The Truth About Free Speech

The removal from the airwaves of radio talk show host Howard Stern, has sparked a heated protest by many radio talk show hosts. Claiming his removal and subsequent fine is against free speech, is unconstitutional, and just not right.

Side note: Interestingly, many of those coming to Stern's defense are conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. I wonder if the leftist talk show hosts, like Stern, would have come to the defense of the conservatives if it had been a conservative who had been removed from the airwaves?

Anyway. What many of these people are failing to consider is:

1. The government owns the airwaves and has a set of rules about what can and cannot be said.

For instance, it is illegal to broadcast in public certain curse words. It is illegal to broadcast in public messages designed to incite racial or class violence and/or attack.

Anything else is pretty well fair game. Meaning, there is a real lot of stuff that can be said without restriction. And the restrictions are in place to help maintain a moral and stable society and government.

2. The radio station the talk show hosts broadcast from is a Private Enterprise owned by someone else. And that owner can do as they darn well please with their own equipment and business.

If the owner of the station wants, they can pull the plug on any show without giving a reason why. This might upset the talk show host. But it is NOT infringing on their right to free speech. They can still broadcast all they want to. All they have to do is set up their own equipment, get the appropriate licenses and away they go.

And then there is shortwave. A LOT if stuff is broadcast on shortwave radio - and now also as streaming audio from certain websites.

So there are a LOT of ways in which a person can broadcast and take advantage of their free speech.

And this needs to be kept in mind. Your right to free speech is not infringed upon when the person who owns the equipment you are using doesn't want you to use it any more. (Their reasons for not letting you use their equipment are the subject for another discussion, however.)

Medical Records

It's entertaining to watch the anti-life crowd doing their merry dance of denial.

First, they make claims that partial birth fetus killing is necessary to save the life of the mother. But when the government asks to see the non-identifying medical records to back that claim up, the anti-lifers jump up and down claiming invasion of privacy.

The thing is, in Australia, many medical procedures get added to governmental lists. This is how the government and other medical bodies can know how many people have which ailments.

For instance: There is a database which keeps track of a woman's Pap Smear History. A woman can opt off that list. And when she does, all identifying information is removed. Leaving behind the statistical details but not the personal details. This way, Pap Smear information can be compiled and correlated for medical purposes.

The fact the anti-lifers don't want the non-identifying records seen is because it would reveal they have been lying. And almost all partial birth fetus killings have not involved saving the mother's life at all, as they claim.

Without the "life saved" claim, the anti-lifers lose their argument to be allowed to kill a fetus in a partial birth manner.

Home ownership on the increase - or not

Recently, some Australian government talking heads and others within the real estate and banking fields, proclaimed how wonderful the government-supplied first homeowner's grant had been. And because of it we now have roughly 70% of people owning (paying off) their own home.

The uneducated (those who don't know the statistics of home ownership) will accept this "claim" as a sign of good things the government has done.

Those of us who know the truth (investors, etc.), laugh at the BLATANT LIE which has been fostered onto the public.

You see, home ownership is ALWAYS around 70%. In fact, over the last 40 - 50 years or more, it has hovered between 70% - 75% in Australia. Meaning, during the last several decades, 25% - 30% have been renters!

So even with the heavy push of the government's first homeowners grant and the cheap mortgage rates, still 25% - 30% of people rent. And seeing as the current level is at 30%, then it could be said the government grant and cheap loans haven't really done a darn thing to get people to buy their own homes. If they had, you would expect the percentage of renters to drastically decline. But it hasn't. It has stayed at its normal level.

Do you want to know why?

It's because almost all the lenders don't count the grant money, and won't accept it as a deposit. In short, they still want to see that you have saved enough for the deposit and they still want to see clear evidence you can service the debt. (Their lending criteria didn't change.)

This means, the grant money never enabled you to get a home loan or make it easier to get into a house, it only took some of the pressure off AFTER you had been given a home loan and gotten into the house.

Basically, the grant mostly only went to people who could get a house without it. (And this "inside information" comes directly from one of my contacts in one of the country's largest lenders.)

Pro Life Does Not Mean Anti Abortion

The Anti Life people, who prefer to be called Pro Choice (Pro Abortion), also do not like the term Pro Life. They rather the term used be Anti Abortion.

Think about it. We are taught from birth that if you are "anti" something you are almost always in the minority. And "pro" people are in the majority.

This means the anti life crowd is trying to gain the moral high ground by making the Pro Life people Anti Abortion. Of course, it also helps the public forget that the Pro Abortion crowd is really ANTI LIFE. Because if they were known as "anti life" they wouldn't have many supporters.

Barring all arguments of being Pro Life SHOULD also mean you are against the death penalty because that is an anti life penalty; and Pro Abortion should also mean you are in favor of the death penalty because that is a anti life penalty, the cold hard truth of the matter is that Abortion is just plain wrong.

If you haven't already done so - and I doubt many people have - now would be a good time to read the essay "Why Abortion Is Immoral". You can read it here: http://philosophy.tamucc.edu/courses/03-spring/berkich/bioethics/readings/marquis-Why_Abortion_is_Immoral.html

The essay puts forth such logical reasoning it is known to have made anti life people change their mind about the whole abortion question and become Pro Life.

You're Guilty Because I Don't Like You

Some interesting insights are coming out about the jurors who helped find Martha Stewart guilty.

One juror didn't like it that Martha had an air of arrogance about her. And another said it would send a message (and teach a lesson) to all the other fat cats.

And here I was thinking the trial was all about Martha and her doings, not the message some pissed off juror who hates self-made people, wants to get out. I thought it was about serving justice and not serving the whims of a jealous juror who blames successful people for their poor lot in life.

A jury of your peers. This means the jury should have been made up of other self-made people and not Joe and Jane worker. It should have been made up of investors and other capitalists and not working class socialists.

And while the jury have been touted as "intelligent", I question that remark. For a minute's thought on the implications of their decision would see them give a "not guilty" verdict.

Think about it yourself... you are sitting in the jury room and you know

If you say she is guilty, she is going to go to jail. Her stock will go down. She will lose vast sums of money. She will lose her position on the exchange. She will be forbidden from running a public company forever. In short, you will almost totally ruin her. And for what? Really for what? What true crime in which other people were personally hurt or deprived, was committed?

By truly weighing up the implications of a guilty verdict and comparing that to the "crime" there is no way a normal person would find her guilty - unless they hated rich people and have something against them, as most people do.

There is also some talk that everything could have been made better if Martha had apologized.

Apologized for what? Really. What does Martha have to apologize for? For protecting her own money? For not willingly standing by watching it dwindle into nothing?

When a person feels they have done nothing wrong, they do not want to apologize. For they view apologizing as an act of admission. (Of course, the lefty crowd tend also never to apologize even when they are wrong. And will even deny being wrong - even when faced with evidence to prove they are wrong.)

Martha's case is more a reminder of the power grab of some government officials. These are people who suck on the collective's teat and have never really had to be responsible for anything much. And they certainly never created anything of use. This is their little "I've got power over you" ploy. Their "so there" taunt. (Snivelling weasels they are.)

People who seek power over others should never be given it!

Sugar, Iraq & Martha Blues

It has been a little while since my last update because I have been busy working on a new project. It's so super hush hush I've already said too much letting you know why I was busy.

So what has happened in this big wide world since my last entry.

Let's see:

Sugar

Australia has signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. And of course, the Australian sugar-cane growers are up in arms. It seems they don't have full unrestricted access to the large US sugar market. And they now also want government assistance to help stay in business.

Ok. First things first. There is a company in the US called Monsanto. I've previously written about them here. They make Nutrasweet. It is thus NOT in the US's best interests to allow cheap foreign sugar into their country to weaken a US company - no matter how unethical that US company is.

Of course, there is also the question of the US sugar-cane growers.

Anyway. Getting back to the winging Aussie sugar-cane growers. They want to be allowed to sell to the US without restriction, or get government handouts to stay in business. Um. Excuse me. How have they been able to stay in business all these years without government handouts and while restrictions have been in place?

Also, I don't recall reading, seeing or hearing about any government "bodies" who forced these people into growing sugar-cane. As far as I am aware, they (the farmers) all decided to grow sugar-cane off their own bat. And now that times are tough they are winging.

I wipe my hands of them... thems that wants to be given free access elsewhere while wanting protection and assistance at home.

Iraq's Constitution

So the temp Iraq governing body was all set to sign the temp constitution into power, but then objected to some things in it. BUT, a careful analysis shows something more underlying then disagreement about some of the clauses in the constitution.

Think of the signing event. It was complete with singing children, lights, cameras, and ceremony. Everything typical of how something would be signed in the US.

The Arabs don't want to be seen to be led into this by the US. And as one of the governing body said... we will sign it, behind closed doors. And THEN we can have a ceremony. In short, we will sign it under OUR way of doing things and NOT the US's way.

It's important for everyone to realize, these people want to be seen as self-governing and NOT being a puppet of the US. Their refusal to sign the other day was their way of making sure the signing took place under circumstances THEY determined and in a manner THEY worked out.

Violent Demonstrations, Again

Just heard on the news there was a demonstration somewhere and it turned violent. As if that is supposed to be a surprise.

Next time there is a large demonstration, watch it and you WILL see it turn violent. They ALWAYS do. WITHOUT exception!

Of course, the question to ASK is: "WHO makes these demonstrations turn violent?"

In almost all cases, it is a far left socialist individual or group of individuals who turn the protest violent - being far left socialists their goal is to overthrow our government (as preached in their Bible, The Communist Manifesto). They come to the protest armed with various weapons and just wait their moment before lunching an attack on the police. When the police retaliate, they attack further and urge other members of the crowd to do the same. Before too long, the violence is self-feeding. Individual thought is lost and replaced with the crowd mind.

Look What They Done To Martha, Ma

In case you have been living on a desert island for the past few days, Martha Stewart has been found guilty of: Conspiracy, Making false statements, and Obstructing justice.

With her verdict came the usual "analysis" by all the so-called media experts. And the viewing public has had their chance to "weigh in" too. Some say she deserves what she gets, while others think the sentencing could be too harsh.

I have a different take. In fact, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I mean, look at what she has been found guilty of.

Not one of those "crimes" is, in fact, a crime. And not one single other person was hurt by those things she has been found guilty of. And it is kinda like being arrested for resisting arrest.

She "Obstructed justice" into the investigation of whether she was guilty of "Insider Trading." The prosecution dropped the Insider Trading due to lack of evidence. And thus, they were left with Martha's actions during their investigation in which they couldn't find enough evidence to convict.

She made false statements, which means, someone else reckons she said something different. Like a she-said he-said, thing. Hardly worth going to jail over.

In fact, everything she has been found guilty of is not worth going to jail over. Otherwise she will be going to jail for saying certain things during an investigation into her actions which revealed there wasn't enough evidence to get her for those actions.

That's be like being asked about the candy you stole when you were ten. You deny taking it. And are then prosecuted for lying about taking the candy even though it cannot be proved you took the candy.

As for punishment for Martha: Well, first lets see how her appeal goes. But barring that, the "guilty" verdict has wiped out so much value of her stock she has personally lost $100,000,000 (one hundred million dollars). That is one heck of a lot of dough. And in my opinion, to have one hundred million dollars of your personal wealth obliterated is punishment enough. Especially considering there are NO VICTIMS in her so-called crime.

Do I think it was a witch hunt with Martha being the witch? YES I DO.

Consider the Enron guys. Anyone seen their court case going on? Anyone know of any verdicts with them?

Hello? It's very quiet. I can hear a few remarks but nothing really that much. And yet, the Enron guys really did hurt other people.

It will be interesting to see what kind of punishment THEY face when it comes time to pay the piper.

So here's a situation where it is the prosecution's actions which have led to thousands of people losing money. Their prosecution of Martha Stewart for a crime they couldn't find enough evidence of, and one which had no victim, has plummeted a stock, and virtually destroyed a company and all who work in it. And yet Martha is supposedly the bad one here. Go figure.

Oh... if only common sense would reign instead of this "boys club" mentality which goes on.